Skip to main content

Full text of "DTIC ADA119409: Soviet Dissident Scientists, 1966-78: A Study."

See other formats




Marshall  L.  Brown,  Jr. 


f(jp  QCiK  n; JB' 

AUG  0  3  t982<  S 

(..oif/no.-.H  fOHfWttUOMUi-  INFORM*  W 
An,i»  MTiJiSl,v  RfVltWiOASO-PAi 
•••  -mint  If  DtflNSf 



%  ' 

United  State*  Army  Russian  Institute 
APO  New  York  09053 

June  19T9 


.  .  \a* 

z.7**zz** r=- 

V'  -~ 


ARO  M1W  TORS  etou 

8  June  1979 


This  research  project  represents  fulfillment  of  a  student 
requirement  for  successful  completion  of  the  overseas  chase  of 
training  of  the  Department  of  the  Army's  Foreign  Area  Officer 
Program  (Russian). 

Only  unclassified  sources  are  used  in  producing  the  research 
paper.  The  opinions,  value  judgements  and  conclusions  expressed 
are  those  of  the  author  and  in  no  way  reflect  official  policy  of 
the  United  States  Government,  Department  of  Defense,  Department  of 
the  Army,  the  US  Army  Intelligence  and  Security  Command,  or  the 
Russian  Institute.  The  completed  paper  is  not  to  be  reproduced 
in  whole  or  in  part  without  permission  of  the  Commander,  US  Army 
Russian  Institute,  APO  New  York  0^053. 

Interested  readers  are  invited  to  send  their  comments  to  the 
Commander  of  the  Institute. 




study  is  aa  analysis  of  the  Soviet  dissident  scientists  of  the 
1960's  and  1970*8  -  who  they  are,  vhat  they  have  protested,  and  why  they 
have  protested.  Over  550  names  of  scientists  involved  in  dissident  ac¬ 
tivities  have  been  culled  from  unofficial  'samizdat*  material  available 
in  the  Vest  and  relevant  biographical  information  on  these  scientists  has 
been  arranged  in  tabular  form.  On  the  basis  of  correlations  found  in 
this  data  conclusions  have  been  reached  on  vhat  has  caused  the  scientists 
to  turn  to  dissident  activity.  This  study  also  includes  a  chronology  of 
dissidence  in  the  Soviet  scientific  community  in  the  period  1966-78,  an 
analysis  of  the  groups  vithin  the  dissident  movement  vith  which  the  dis¬ 
sident  scientists  have  aligned  themselves,  and  some  predictions  on  the 
orospects  of  future  dissidence  among  scientists. 



Chapter  I. 

Chapter  II. 

Chapter  III, 




The  Historical  Development  of  Dissidence  in  the  Soviet  1 

Scientific  Community 

1.  1960-68:  The  beginning  of  collective  dissent  end  1 

the  resultant  backlash 

2.  19c9-71:  The  beginning  of  dissident  groups  and  13 

the  Jevisn  movement 

3.  1972-73:  Massive  governmental  crackdown:  Chron-  13 

icle  suppressed  and  wide-scale  persecution 

4.  197^-78:  Attempts  by  tne  autnorities  to  eradicate  23 

dissident  groups  by  selected  arrests  of  leaders 

5.  Conclusion  31 

Participation  and  leadership  by  Scientists  in  Dissi-  32 
dent  Groups Other  Groupings  of  Scientists 

1.  Democratic /Human  Rights  Groups  33 

2.  Ethnic /Religious  Groups  36 

3.  Revolutionary /Criminal  Groups  ^3 

1*.  Scientific/Professional  Groups  4T 

5.  Social-elite  Groupings  >0 

6.  Conclusions  53 

Causes  of  Dissidence  in  Dissident  Scientists  ■>* 

1.  Theoretical  Framework  5** 

2.  Data  (Biographical  Tables)  57 

3.  Results  83 

1*.  Conclusions  133 



Appendix  1  . 

(Institutes  at  vhicn  dissident  scientists  nave 


Appendix  II 

(dissident  scientists  active  in  the  Soviet  dis¬ 
sident  aovement  as  of  1977-78) 


Appendix  III 

(Jewish  scientists  vno  nave  been  refused  eai- 
5 ration  and  are  still  in  the  USSR) 


note  8 


(pp  1-3) 


Chapter  I 

(pp  4-31) 


Chapter  II 

(pp  32-j3) 


Chapter  III 

(pp  34-104) 



(pp  105-110) 




(The  defeat*  of  human  rights  vat)  the 
natural  continuation  of  his  scientif¬ 
ic  work:  a  scientist  cannot  accept 
the  lack  of  freedom  of  information, 
the  forced  conformity  of  convictions 
and  lying.  In  his  civic  vork  (he) 
maintained  the  same  principles  that 
he  did  in  science:  full  knowledge  of 
the  facts,  responsibility  for  their 
exact  formulation,  and  accuracy  in 
the  conclusion.  And,  openess  and 
full  disclosure. . .1 

We  (scientists)  have  one  or  two  good 
features.  We  have  a  comparatively 
high  degree  of  honesty.  That  cones 
from  our  scientific  style  of  think¬ 
ing,  which  is  carried  out  without 
reference  to  the  opinions  of  other 
men.  And  we  are  comparatively  inde¬ 
pendent  ,  which  also  comes  from  our 
scientific  training.  We  direct  our 
thoughts  to  the  problem  we  are  work¬ 
ing  on.  We  are  not  easily  distract¬ 
ed  -  comparatively,  I  mean... I  think 
we  are  better  educated  than  politi¬ 
cians.  .  .2 


Whether  there  is  something  special  in  a  scientist  that  leads  him  into 
dissidence,  something  that  is  related  to  the  scientific  method,  deductive 
reasoning,  and  experimental  proof,  as  reflected  in  the  two  quotes  above, 
is  an  interesting  question,  but  not  one  that  will  be  discussed  in  any 
depth  in  this  study.  True,  even  a  cursory  knowledge  of  the  Soviet  dis¬ 
sident  movement  of  the  1960's  and  1970 's  suggests  the  important  role  of 
the  scientist.  A  great  number  of  the  most  prominent  and  influential  dis¬ 
sidents  have  been  scientists,  such  as  SAKhAROV,  ORLOV,  TURChIN,  TVERDOKh- 
ScnchARANSKIY . *  But  not  all  scientists  have  been  or  are  dissidents.  This 
study  is  an  attempt  to  determine  why  same  of  the  scientists  have  dissent¬ 
ed.  Why  other  scientists  have  not  is  left  to  another  researcher. 

The  major  questions  this  study  will  address  are:  who  are  they?  (are 
there  many  dissident  scientists,  or  does  the  prominence  of  the  few  sim¬ 
ply  leave  that  impression);  what  do  they  protest?  (are  dissident  scien- 
fci*bs  involved  only  in  matters  that  affect  them  as  scientists,  or  do 
they  become  involved  in  such  issues  as  religious  freedom,  human  rights, 
or  national  minority  rights);  why  do  they  dissent?  (what  are  some  of  the 

•The  names  of  scientists  who  appear  in  the  table  in  Chapter  III  are 
capitalized  throughout  the  paper. 


motivating  factors  behind  their  decision  to  dissent);  what  does  all  this 
mean  in  terms  of  future  dissent  among  scientists?  (what  projections  can 
be  made). 

The  material  used  in  researching  these  questions  was  almost  exclu¬ 
sively  "samizdat",  the  clandestinely-published  dissident  literature  wide¬ 
ly  circulated  in  the  Soviet  Union.  The  "samizdat"  sources  employed  in 
this  study  were  issues  1-^9  of  Khronlka  tekushchikh  sobvtiy  (Chronicle 
of  Current  Events),  30  April  1968  -  14  May  1976.  So'oraniye  document ov 
sami zdata  (Collection  of  Samizdat  Documents),  volumes  1-30,  and  Materi¬ 
ally  samizdata  (Samizdat  Materials),  1971-77.  The  Journal,  The  Chronicle 
of  Human  Rights  in  the  USSR,  volumes  1-31  (1973-78),  which  is  publisned 
by  former  Soviet  dissidents  now  living  in  the  Vest;  was  also  used  to  com¬ 
pile  data.  The  chief  editor  of  this  journal,  incidentally,  is  ChALIDZE, 
a  physicist.  Gary  Penfield's  comprehensive  study.  The  Chronicle  of  Cur¬ 
rent  Events:  A  Content  Analysis  (USARI,  Garmisch,  1973) ."was  an  indis- 
pensible  source  for  identifying  many  of  the  dissident  scientists  and  for 
putting  the  scientists'  contributions  to  the  dissident  movement  from  1968 
to  1971  into  perspective.  The  biographical  listing  published  by  Radio 
Liberty,  Sovetskiye  grazhdane  zashchishchayut  molodykh  liter atorov  (Sovi¬ 
et  citizens  defend  young  writers)  (Guide  #7b,  Munich,  May  1966),  was  al¬ 
so  of  great  assistance  in  the  compilation  of  the  biographical  information. 
The  personal  working  files  of  Peter  Doran  of  Radio  Liberty  were  likewise 
extremely  helpful,  and  the  author  is  greatly  indebted  to  Mr,  Doran  for 
his  interest  in  this  study. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  study,  a  "scientist"  is  defined  as  a  research¬ 
er-scholar  involved  in  the  natiaral  sciences  of  physics,  matnematics,  bi¬ 
ology,  chemistry,  geology,  cybernetics,  and  oceanology.  Linda  Lubrano, 
incidentally,  used  similar  criteria  in  her  studies  of  Soviet  scientists, 
confining  her  research  to  physicists,  mathematicians,  chemists,  and  bi¬ 
ologists.  3  Engineers  were  not  included  in  this  study  unless  the  engi¬ 
neer  was  involved  in  research  in  one  of  the  natural  sciences.  The  pri¬ 
mary  reason  for  the  exclusion  of  engineers  is  that  the  job  title  "engi¬ 
neer”  in  the  Soviet  Union  is  a  nebulous,  nondescript ive  term;  Albert 
Parry  has  suggested  that  no  more  than  a  third  of  all  Soviets  who  hold 
the  title  of  engineer  actually  have  the  education  to  merit  it.^ 

Another  caveat  on  the  use  of  the  term  "scientist"  in  this  study  is 
that,  because  a  scientist  often  ceased  being  an  active  researcher-schol¬ 
ar  after  his  initial  dissidence  (he  lost  his  clearances,  his  Job,  and 
the  access  to  research  laboratories)  and  had  to  turn  instead  to  non- 
sclentific  Jobs,  all  dissidents  who  were  active  scientists  (according  to 
the  above  definition)  at  the  time  of  their  initial  dissent  were  includ¬ 
ed.  Teachers  in  the  natural  sciences  have  also  been  included  because 
their  Jobs  often  involve  active  research.  Students  in  the  natural  sci¬ 
ences  were  also  mentioned,  primarily  to  show  the  existence  of  dissidence 
down  at  the  level  of  the  university  science  department.  There  is  a 
chance,  too,  that  the  students  might  resurface  as  active  scientists  in 
the  future,  so  their  inclusion  in  this  study  might  serve  as  a  "Dissi¬ 
dent  Scientist  Early  Warning"  system. 

It  is  Just  as  important  to  define  what  is  meant  by  "dissident"  for 


the  purposes  of  this  study.  A  dissident  is  one  vho  has  taken  an  action 
or  supported  a  position  that  has  incurred  the  vrath  of  the  autnorities; 
thereafter  the  dissident  is  persecuted,  ostracized,  or  cajoled  into  re¬ 
joining  the  fold.  Barghoorn  defines  dissent  as 

a  broad  range  of  articulated  negative  attitudes  re¬ 
garding  political  matters.. .the  ultimate  object  of 
(which)  is  to  correct  mistakes,  to  right  wrongs,  or  protest  against... an  intolerable  evil, 5 
and  this  is  a  good  summary  of  the  various  objectives  of  the  dissident  sci¬ 
entists.  It  should  be  noted  that,  in  a  free  society,  most  dissent  is  le¬ 
gal;  in  a  totalitarian  state,  almost  no  dissent  is.  A  dissident  then,  is 
not,  in  the  general  sense  of  the  word,  a  criminal. 

To  conclude  this  introduction,  a  few  words  should  be  said  about  the 
validity  of  any  researcher's  claim  that  he  can  explain  human  behavior  (in 
this  case,  an  act  of  dissidence)  and  even  predict  behavior  on  the  basis 
of  data.  The  author  of  this  study  assumes  that  there  is  some  validity  to 
this  claim.  There  is  no  concensus  in  the  social  sciences  on  this  matter, 
which  complicates  this  study's  theoretical  underpinning  somewhat.  In  any 
case,  upon  this  "benavioralist"  act  of  faith  the  author  has  constructed 
a  model  which  purports  to  determine  the  "cause”  of  dissent  from  personal 
and  environmental  factors:  date  of  birth,  educational  level,  ethnic  or¬ 
igin,  and  so  on.  All  dissident  scientists  are  examined  on  these  factors, 
and  factors  showing  up  the  same  for  a  number  of  scientists  are  consider¬ 
ed  to  be  significant  in  understanding  the  causes  of  the  dissident  act. 

This  model  is  presented  in  Chapter  III.  The  first  two  chapters  were  add¬ 
ed  because  of  the  author's  desire  to  please  the  "traditionalists":  both 
of  these  chapters  offer  data  couched  in  historical-descriptive  packaging. 
It  is  hoped  that  this  "methodological  fence-straddling"  will  not  be  dis¬ 
concerting  to  the  reader;  it  could  even  be  suggested  that  by  using  this 
methodological  mix  all  the  relevant  data  will  be  analyzed;  data  not  pick¬ 
ed  up  using  one  technique  should  surface  using  another. 



This  chapter  offers  a  historical  overview  of  dissidenee  in  the  scien¬ 
tific  community  and  focuses  on  the  issues  which  have  sparked  dissent. 
Primary  attention  will  be  devoted  to  events  in  the  1966-78  time  frame, 
and  the  events  will  be  presented  chronologically.  The  purpose  of  this 
chapter  is  to  document  the  participation  of  scientists  in  the  dissident 
movement  and  to  establish  the  historical  framework  for  the  analysis  in 
Chapter  II  of  dissident  groups  in  which  scientists  have  been  active. 

Some  of  the  information  in  this  chapter  will  also  be  the  basis  for  sta¬ 
tistical  data  included  in  Chapter  III.  While  not  all  of  the  known  e- 
vents  which  have  involved  or  affected  scientists  are  included  in  this 
chapter  in  the  interests  of  (relative)  brevity,  it  is  believed  that  all 
the  significant  events  and  issues  are  touched  upon  to  the  extent  that 
some  conclusions  on  the  historical  development  of  dissidenee  among  sci¬ 
entists  can  be  reduced. 

1.  1966-68:  The  beginning  of  collective  dissent  and  the  resultant  bac 


The  mass  participation  of  scientists  in  the  Soviet  dissident  movement 
began  with  the  trial  of  writers  A.  S.  Sinyavskiy  and  Yu.  M.  Daniel  on  10- 
1U  February  1966.  Prior  to  19 66  there  had  been  several  instances  of  ais- 
sidence  on  the  part  of  individual  scientists  (such  as  physicist  KAPITsA, 
who  refused  Stalin's  order  to  work  on  the  atomic  bomb  in  the  19^0' s,l  1 
physicist  SAKhAROV,  who,  after  helping  to  develop  the  hydrogen  bomb,  lob¬ 
bied  for  various  arms  control  measures  in  the  late  1950's  and  in  the  ear¬ 
ly  1960'3,2  mathematician  PIMENOV,  who  was  convicted  of  forming  an  anti- 
Soviet  group  among  students  in  Leningrad  in  1957,3  mathematician  VOL'PIN, 
who  participated  in  an  open  meeting  in  Moscow's  Pushkin  Square  in  support 
of  Sinyavskiy  and  Daniel  in  1965,^  and  matnematics  student  and  later 
teacher  MAShKOVA,  wno  was  convicted  of  forming  an  anti-Soviet  group 
in  1956)2,  but  there  had  been  no  instances  of  scientists  dissenting  collec¬ 

Following  the  Sinyavskiy-Daniel  trial  two  protest  letters  were  sent 
to  Soviet  authorities.  Neither  directly  protested  tae  trial,  but  both 
expressed  the  concern  of  Soviet  intellectuals ,  engendered  by  the  triad, 
teat  Stalinism  was  being  rehabilitated.  The  first  letter,  sent  sometime 
in  1966,  probably  in  February,  was  signed  by  twenty-five  individuals, 
six  of  whom  were  scientists  (all  academicians  and  physicists) .0  They  ex¬ 
pressed  their  support  of  the  condemnation  of  Stalin  as  contained  in 
Khrushchev's  20th  CPSU  Congress  speech  and  warned  that  any  renabiiitation 
of  Stalin  would  lead  to  serious  Internal  and  international  repercussions. 
Although  he  didn't  sign  this  letter.  Academician  and  radioengineer,  A.  I. 
oerg  stated  that  if  Stalin  were  rehabilitated  at  the  forthcoming  23rd 
Forty  Congress,  he  would  leave  the  Academy  of  Sciences  as  a  sign  of 

protest. 7  As  it  turned  out,  whether  because  of  these  protests  or  not, 
the  Congress  did  not  rehabilitate  Stalin.  The  second  letter,  signed  by 
twenty-one  intellectuals,  nine  of  whom  were  scientists,  in  the  Fall  of 
1966,  expressed  the  fear  that  changes  approved  in  the  Soviet  criminal 
code.  Articles  190-1  and  190-3 ,  vould  be  used  indiscriminately  ana  con¬ 
trary  to  "Leninist  principles  of  socialist  democracy. These  changes 
made  it  much  easier  for  the  government  to  prosecute  individuals  devi¬ 
ating  from  the  official  line,  and  were  presumably  adopted  with  the  ex¬ 
periences  of  the  Sinyavskiy-Daniel  trial  in  mind,  in  anticipation  of 
similar  trials  in  the  future. 

Several  prominent  Soviet  academicians,  Joined  by  over  a  hundred  and 
fifty  other  intellectuals  and  scientists,  signed  a  letter  sometime  in 
1967  which  called  for  the  elimination  of  censorship  and  proposed  draft 
legislation  for  the  free  exchange  of  information. 9  This  letter  turned 
out  to  be  the  final  attempt  for  many  of  these  scientists  to  change  the 
Soviet  system  through  the  signing  of  collective  protest  letters,  prob¬ 
ably  because  they  realized  the  inefficacy  of  the  letters  and  the  risk 
involved  of  incurring  the  wrath  of  the  authorities.  In  any  case,  of  the 
seven  members  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences,  only  SAKhROV  and  LEONTOVICh 
were  to  continue  active  dissidence;  GEL'FAND  signed  only  one  more  pro¬ 
test  letter,  in  1968. 

Several  arrests  and  trials  of  dissidents  in  1967  sparked  the  concern 
of  scientists;  by  far  the  largest  response  was  for  the  arrests  (in  Jan¬ 
uary  1967)  and  forthcoming  trial  of  A.  I.  Ginzburg,  who  had  compiled  and 
disseminated  a  "White  Book"  on  , the  Sinyavskiy-Baniel  trial,  and  YU. 
Galanskov,  who  was  the  editor  of  the  underground  magazine  Phoenix.  Prior 
to  the  dissidence  surrounding  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  case,  though,  the 
trial  of  V.  Bukovskiy,  V.  Delone,  and  V.  Kushev  in  September  1967  brought 
two  scientists,  LITVINOV  and  VOL* PIN  to  the  attention  of  the  authorities. 
Delone  and  Kushev,  incidentally,  had  been  arrested  for  participation  in 
a  demonstration  on  22  January  1967  protesting  the  arrests'  of  Ginzburg  ._nd 
Galanskov.  Bukovskiy  was  involved  in  planning  the  demonstration .  VOL'- 
PIN  had  written  to  a  Moscow  nevspaper  on  inaccuracies  he  had  found  in  an 
article  on  the  Bukovskiy-Delone-Kushev  trial,  indicating  that  such  mis¬ 
takes  were  inevitable  when  a  trial  was  not  open  to  the  public. 1°  LIT¬ 
VINOV  was  called  into  the  KGB  on  26  September  1967  and  warned  not  to  pub¬ 
lish  and  distribute  a  transcript  of  the  trial,  under  the  threat  of  crimi¬ 
nal  prosecution. 11  He  did  not,  however,  stop  collecting  documents  for 
the  transcript . 12 

In  November  1967  a  petition  was  sent  to  the  Procurator-General  of  the 
USSR  by  116  individuals,  twenty  of  whom  were  scientists,  asking  for  per¬ 
mission  to  attend  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial,  scheduled  for  early 
1968.13  A  second  petition  was  sent  a  month  later  by  forty-two  individu¬ 
als,  of  whom  fourteen  vere  scientists. I1*  Five  scientists  vho  had  not 
signed  the  earlier  protest  signed  the  second  one.  Thus,  by  the  end  of 
1967  twenty-five  scientists,  none  of  whom  was  an  academician  or  noted 
scientist,  had  taken  steps  which  vould  single  them  out  as  dissidents  in 
the  eyes  of  Soviet  authorities.  Because  of  their  lack  of  notoriety  and 
high  academic  position,  they  were  probably  much  more  likely  to  elicit 
repressive  measures  from  the  authorities.  There  may  have  been  security 
in  numbers,  though,  for  in  1968  they  were  joined  by  nearly  one  hundred 

and  fifty  other  scientists,  who  protested  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial 

The  floodgates  of  dissidence  in  the  scientific  community  opened  vide 
in  January  1968  with  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial.  The  impetus  for  much 
of  the  dissent  was  the  conviction  of  Ginzburg,  Galanskov  and  their  co¬ 
defendants,  Dobrovol ' skiy  and  Lashkova,  but  some  of  the  protests  in  1968 
were  in  support  of  those  who,  after  protesting  the  trial,  vere  themselves 
arrested,  harrassed,  relieved  of  their  jobs,  or  kicked  out  of  the  Party. 
The  Chronicle  of  Current  Events,  which,  according  to  Rothberg,  was  the 
product  of  top  Soviet  scientists  and  technologists  having  access  to  so¬ 
phisticated  communications  systems, 15  began  publication  on  30  April  1968, 
after  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial  but  in  the  midst  of  the  protesting 
about  the  trial.  The  Chronicle  from  the • beginning  recorded  a  lot  of  in¬ 
formation  on  illegal  reprisals  accorded  those  vho  protested,  a  signifi¬ 
cant  number  of  whom  vere  scientists. 

On  the  eve  of  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial,  thirty-one  of  Ginzburg's 
friends,  six  of  whom  vere  scientists,  sent  a  letter  to  the  Moscow  Munic¬ 
ipal  Court  in  which  they  expressed  their  concern  on  a  number  of  alarm! ng 
circumstances  preceding  the  trial:  the  long  pre-trial  confinement,  the 
absence  of  information  in  the  press  on  the  reason  for  the  arrests,  and 
the  prolonged  invest igation.l6  The  signers  of  this  document  vouched  for 
Ginzburg's  honesty  and  propriety,  and  claimed  that  he  didn't  participate 
in  political  matters  as  such.  They  further  asserted  that  his  compilation 
of  documents  from  the  Sinyavskiy-Daniel  trial  could  not  be  sufficient 
reason  for  his  arrest  and  trial;  that,  if  so,  this  could  not  be  a  healthy 
move  for  a  society  which  recently  had  witnessed  the  mass  rehabilitation 
of  people  falsely  convicted  under  Stalin.  They  asked  that  the  trial  be 
open  and  fair. 

Another  protest  letter  was  sent  during  the  trial.  This  one  was  signed 
by  eighty  individuals,  fourteen  of  vhcm  were  scientists.1?  The  letter 
appealed  to  the  Soviet  authorities  to  prevent  the  trial  from  becoming 
"closed",  under  the  cover  of  which,  it  was  asserted,  the  KGB  would  set¬ 
tle  accounts  with  people  it  didn't  like.  The  signers  further  claimed 
that  there  had  been  flagrant  violations  of  legal  procedure  at  the  trial 
and  they  called  for  the  initiation  of  legal  action  against  the  appro¬ 
priate  court  officials. 

The  largest  show  of  support  in  connection  with  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov 
trial  come  in  response  to  the  open  letter,  "To  World  Public  Opinion," 
written  by  Daniel's  wife,  L.  Bogoraz,  and  LITVINOV. 18  The  letter,  which 
vas  released  11  January  1968,  eventually  elicited  the  support  of  nearly 
235 'Soviet  citizens.  Bogoraz  and  LITVINOV  alleged  in  the  letter  that 
during  the  trial  the  most  important  Soviet  legal  norms  had  been  violated, 
due  to  the  actions  of  the  judge  and  prosecutor,  who  had  not  allowed  de¬ 
fense  witnesses  to  exercise  their  legal  rights.  They  claimed  that  the 
courtroom  was  filled  with  specially  selected  people  vho  harassed  the  de¬ 
fendants  and  defense  witnesses.  They  appealed  to  Soviet  and  world  pub¬ 
lic  opinion  to  demand  public  condemnation  of  this  "shameful"  trial,  re¬ 
lease  of  the  defendants  from  custody,  and  a  retrial  which  would  include 
international  observers.  This  letter  was  sent  directly  to  the  West  with 
an  appeal  to  disseminate  it  as  quickly  as  possible.  The  authors  thought. 


correctly,  that  it  would  he  hopeless  and  futile  to  send  it  to  Soviet 
newspapers . 

The  Bogoraz-LITVINOV  letter  was  supported  on  every  account  by  nearly 
235  individuals,  as  mentioned  above.  The  first  letter  of  support,  sign* 
ed  by  170  people,  sixty  of  whom  were  scientists,  vas  sent  5  February  1963 
to  Procurator-General  Rudenko  at  the  concl.  /  on  of  the  trial. 19  The 
letter  repeated  the  charges  that  the  defendants,  witnesses  and  close 
friends  of  the  defendants  had  been  harrassed  and  that  legal  procedure 
had  not  been  followed.  The  signers  claimed  that  the  conviction  and 
sentence  were  not  supported  by  the  evidence  presented  at  the  trial.  They 
also  maintained  that  over  the  previous  several  years  dissidents  had  been 
tried  in  a  more  arbitrary  manner,  and  that  until  this  arbitrariness  was 
stopped  and  condemned,  no  one  could  feel  secure.  They  called  for  a  re¬ 
trial,  the  inclusion  of  some  of  the  signers  of  the  letter  at  the  trial 
as  public  representatives,  and  for  the  appropriate  punishment  of  those 
who  were  responsible  for  conducting  the  trial.  An  additional  sixty- 
five  signatures  were  collected  between  February  and  April,  when  the  case 
was  taken  to  appeals  court. 

In  the  three  months  following  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial  additional 
scientists  protested  the  sentences  and  improper  trial  procedures.  Of 
the  306  individuals  signing  these  protest  letters  from  Moscow,  Novosibirsk 
and  Kiev,  ninety-eight  were  scientists.  The  Novosibirsk  letter,  signed 
by  forty-six  people,  fifteen  of  whom  were  scientists,  decried  the  fact 
that  in  order  to  get  information  on  the  trial  they  had  to  turn  to  foreign 
Communist  publications,  and  asserted  that  a  sense  of  civic  responsibility 
forced  them  to  denounce  "closed^*  political  trials  as  intolerable. 20  The 
signers  claimed  they  could  not  allow  the  Soviet  judicial  system  to  be  re¬ 
moved  again  from  the  control  of  public  opinion.  They  called  for  the  re¬ 
versal  of  the  Judge's  decision  and  a  review  of  the  case,  with  full  dis¬ 
closure  in  the  press  of  the  relevant  materials. 

In  February  1968  121  Soviet  citizens,  including  forty-nine  scientists, 
most  of  whom  were  from  Moscow,  sent  a  letter  of  protest  on  Ginzburg's 
conviction  to  Brezhnev,  Kosygin,  Podgornyy,  the  chairman  of  the  Supreme 
Court  and  the  Prosecutor-General , 21  in  the  letter  they  claimed  that 
there  vas  no  evidence  connecting  Ginzburg  vith  anti-Soviet  emigre  organ¬ 
izations  and  that  the  insinuation  that  this  vas  the  case,  as  Soviet  news¬ 
papers  had  reported,  was  similar  to  the  tactics  used  in  the  Stalinist 
trials  of  1937.  They  requested  a  review  of  the  Ginzburg  case. 

The  letter  sent  from  Kiev  in  April  1968  vas  addressed  to  Brezhnev, 
Kosygin,  and  Podgornyy,  and  vas  signed  by  139  people  living  in  the 
Ukraine,  thirty-four  of  whom  were  scientists. 2z  The  letter  expressed 
concern  of  the  individuals  signing  it  about  the  numerous  political  trials 
of  young  people  from  the  scientific  and  cultural  intelligentsia  in  the 
preceding  years.  The  signers  were  bothered  by  the  "closed"  nature  of  a 
number  of  trials  in  the  Ukraine  from  1956-66,  claiming  that  this  vas  done 
in  violation  of  the  Soviet  Constitution.  They  feared  that  because  of  the 
"closed"  nature  of  the  trials  illegalities  would  tend  to  occur,  and  they 
cited  as  an  example  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial,  about  vhich  they  had 
heard  from  the  Bogoraz-LITVINOV  letter.  They  claimed  that  in  many  of  the 
trials  the  defendants  had  been  convicted  for  views  that  were  not  anti- 


Soviet  at  all  but  vere  critical  of  isolated  incidents.  The  Ukrainians 
furtner  maintained  that  these  recent  political  trials  vere  a  fora  of 
suppressing  the  civic  activity  and  social  criticism  which  are  absolutely 
essential  for  the  health  of  any  society,  and  that  these  trials  witnessed 
a  restoration  of  Stalinism.  Finally,  they  called  on  Brezhnez,  Kosygin 
and  Podgornyy  to  intervene  to  ensure  that  the  Judicial  authorities 
strictly  adhered  to  Soviet  lav.  They  also  expressed  the  wish  that  the 
difficulties  that  had  arisen  in  Soviet  socio-political  life  could  be 
kept  within  the  realm  of  ideas  and  not  handed  over  to  the  KGB  and  the 
procurator . 

3efore  moving  on  to  subsequent  issues  in  1968,  a  few  conclusions  should 
be  reached  on  the  preceding  protest  letters.  First  of  all,  one  should  be 
struck  by  the  similar  tone  and  content,  couched  in  legal  terminology  and 
anti-Stalinism,  with  concern  for  full  disclosure  of  the  Judicial  proceed¬ 
ings  and  the  pover  of  the  KGB.  Since  the  drafters  of  these  protest 
letters  didn't  always  have  a  sample  protest  letter  at  their  side  when 
drawing  up  the  letter,  these  similarities  must  reflect  common  views  and 
concerns.  Secondly,  the  protest  letters  criticize  more  than  the  issue 
at  hand.  In  the  case  of  the  Bogoraz -LITVINOV  letter,  the  appeal  for 
international  observers  at  a  future  political  trial  implies  that  only 
under  foreign  pressure  and  intervention  is  Justice  preserved  in  any 
political  trial.  The  supporters  of  the  Bogoraz-LITVINOV  letter  used  their 
letter  to  denounce  previous  trials  of  dissidents;  the  Novosibirsk  protest¬ 
ers  assailed  the  Soviet  press  for  insufficient  coverage  of  the  trial. 

The  Ukrainians  denounced  trials  in  the  Ukraine  from  1956  and  asserted 
that  social  criticism  was  necessary.  Finally,  these  protest  letters  u- 
nited  over  one  hundred  and  seventy  scientists  in  a  common  cause,  shoving 
them  that  there  vere  like-minded  scientists  in  other  parts  of  the  Soviet 
Union.  While  it  is  doubtful  that  a  strong  feeling  of  solidarity  vas  e- 
voked  by  the  signing  of  these  collective  protest  letters,  it  must  be  ac¬ 
knowledged  that  the  phenomenon  of  collective  protest  in  a  totalitarian 
state  is  so  rare  and  potentially  dangerous  (to  the  state)  that  the  signers 
must  have  realized  the  importance  of  their  act  and  felt  strongly  about  it. 
The  fact  that  they  had  all  made  a  commitment  exposing  themselves  to  simi¬ 
lar  reprisals  should  have  unified  them  to  some  extent. 

A  few  days  after  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial  a  new  incident  arose 
which  greatly  affected  part  of  the  scientific  community,  the  forceable 
incarceration  of  mathematician  VOL'PIN  in  a  psychiatric  hospital  on  lU 
February,  presumably  for  his  active  participation  in  the  dissident  move¬ 
ment  since  1965.  A  protest  letter  vas  sent  to  the  Minister  of  Health 
and  the  Prosecutor-General  by  ninety-five  people,  primarily  mathemati¬ 
cians,  who  expressed  concern  for  VOL'PIN's  well-being  at  the  hospital. 23 
The  protesters  claimed  that  VOL'PIN's  hospitalization  vas  a  flagrant 
violation  of  medical  and  legal  standards,  and  they  requested  that  he  be 
released.  VOL'PIN  was  finally  released  12  May  1968,  vithout  having  been 
charged  vith  a  crime.  The  mathematicians  who  signed  the  letter,  however, 
vere  not  as  lucky.  They  vere  under  substantial  pressure  to  modify  their 
position,  which  seemed  to  be  critical  of  the  Soviet  Judicial  system.  The 
denouement  of  this  pressure  vas  a  letter,  broadcast  by  Radio  Moscow  on  26 
March  1968,  which  denounced  the  attempts  of  the  foreign  press  to  exploit 
the  earlier  letter.  This  latest  letter  was  signed  bv  fifteen  of  the  orig¬ 
inal  ninety-five,  all  from  Moscow  State  University.  2**  The  fifteen  claimed 


that  they  uad  been  concerned  only  witn  the  conditions  at  tne  -articular 
ncspital  in  whicn  VOL 'PIN  vas  placed  and  the  fact  that  his  family  had  not 
been  consulted.  They  stated  further  tnat  they  were  "pleased"  to  find  out 
that  he  had  been  transferred  to  anctner  nospital  "core  suited  to  his  case." 
The  fifteen  also  mentioned  that  they  had  been  aware  tnat  VOL 'PIN  hod 
been  under  psychiatric  observation  for  a  number  of  years  and  had  been  in 
mental  hospitals  before.  Further,  they  claimed  that  their  concern  was 
for  a  colleague,  "a  sick  man  but  a  capable  mathematician.”  It  cannot  be 
overlooked  that  only  fifteen  were  cowed  into  issuing  this  retraction. 

One  must  assume,  moreover,  that  the  Soviet  authorities  would  have  pre¬ 
ferred  a  unanimous  retraction,  as  so  much  of  Soviet  life  is  conducted 
under  the  ruse  of  unanimity.  The  remaining  eighty  who  refused  to  re¬ 
tract  the  letter,  then,  risked  the  increased  displeasure  of  the  author¬ 
ities.  In  fact,  the  refusal  to  retract  assumes  nearly  as  much  importance, 
in  terms  of  commitment  to  dissidence,  as  the  decision  to  sign  it  in  the 
first  place.  One  could  plead  ignorance  of  the  ensuing  political  reper¬ 
cussions  in  the  latter  case;  there  would  be  no  such  defense  in  the  former. 

At  the  Moscow  Party  Conference  in  March  19o6  the  main  topic  of  the 
speeches  was  the  collective  protest  letters  of  the  previous  two  months  on 
the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial  and  VOL'PIN's  confinement.  Academy  of 
Sciences  President  M.  V.  Keldysh  presented  a  speech  on  the  Academy's  gra¬ 
titude  for  the  Party's  trust  and  support  of  scientists,  most  of  whom  in 
turn  "sincerely  support  the  Party  line  in  all  matters."25  There  were  a 
few  scientists  he  admitted,  who,  succumbing  to  provocations,  took  incor¬ 
rect  moves  in  their  public  lives  by  sending  letters  in  support  of  people 
who  were  conducting  hostile  activities.  Keldysh  expressed  his  belief 
that  the  overwhelming  majority  &f  these  scientists  who  had  strayed  had 
done  so  out  of  political  immaturity,  not  understanding  the  tense  politi¬ 
cal  situation  in  the  world.  To  correct  this  situation  Keldysh  said  that 
the  Academy  of  Sciences  would  take  greater  effort  to  explain  the  real 
nature  of  things  to  these  people,  but  that  these  people  ought  to  under¬ 
stand  that  it  wasn't  they  who  determine  what  Soviet  science  would  be, 
that  science  will  progress  in  any  case. 

Keldysh,  after  receiving  a  letter  from  an  American  mathematician  on 
the  fate  of  VOL 'PIN,  had  an  answer  drafted  which  alluded  to  VOL'PIN's 
sicxness,  and  forced  his  brother-in-law,  Academician  P.  S.  NOVIKOV,  to 
sign  it,  after  four  hours  of  haranguing  him.2fa  NOVIKOV,  his  wife 
(Keldysh's  sister)  L.  V.  KELDYSh,  and  their  son,  S.  P.  NOVIKOV  had  all 
signed  the  letter  in  support  of  VOL 'PIN  and  two  letters  in  support  of 

In  March  1966  the  Party  organizations  in  Akademgorodok  (Novosibirsk) 
began  a  witch  hunt  which  led  to  administrative  punishment  for  signers  of 
the  collective  letters  on  tne  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial. 2?  The  Party 
organization  also  closed  a  number  of  cultural  organizations,  young 
people's  clubs  and  galleries. Members  of  the  Party  wno  belonged  to  or 
were  in  sympathy  with  these  organizations  were  expelled  from  the  Party, 
apparently  because  the  authorities  thougnt  that  these  cultural  organiza¬ 
tions  harbored  the  liberal  attitudes  which  led  to  the  protest  letters. 

In  April  i960  tnere  were  several  meetings  in  Moscow  institutes  at 
wnich  the  signers  of  the  collective  protest  letters  were  publicly  re- 


buked.  At  Keldysh’s  institute,  the  Institute  of  Applied  Mathematics,  ten 
scientists,  including  academicians  ZEL'DOVICh  and  GEL'FAND,  had  signed 
protests.  Keldysh  appeared  at  an  open  meeting,  where  he  condemned  his 
colleagues  and  expressed  his  sorrow  that  mathematicians  had  not  lived 
up  to  the  Party's  trust  in  them. 29  He  further  stated  that  the  actions 
of  the  dissident  scientists  hindered  the  Party's  progress  towards  de¬ 
mocratization  and  made  contacts  with  foreign  scientists  more  difficult, 
since  many  Soviet  scientists  would  not  be  able  to  be  sent  abroad.  At  a 
meeting  of  the  Party  committee  of  the  Institute  of  Atomic  Energy  the 
case  of  Academician  LEONTOVICh  was  discussed. 30  LEONTOVICh,  the  head  of 
one  of  the  moat  important  departments  at  the  Institute,  had  not  only  sign¬ 
ed  one  of  the  collective  letters  on  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial,  he  also 
had  composed  its  text.  At  the  meeting  it  was  reported  that  the  Moscow 
Party  Committee  had  directed  that  LEONTOVICh  be  removed  from  his  job.  To 
effect  this  a  representative  of  the  Moscow  committee  presented  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  institute  committee  with  material  on  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov 
trial.  Several  members  of  the  institute  committee  complained  that  the 
material  brought  (only  the  summary  of  the  accusations)  was  not  sufficient, 
and  the  institute  committee  did  not  adopt  the  Moscow  committee's  decision. 
On  the  very  same  day,  senior  workers  at  the  institute  were  given  commemo¬ 
rative  medals  at  an  assembly  in  honor  of  the  25th  Anniversary  of  the  ins¬ 
titute.  The  greatest  applause  was  accorded  LEONTOVICh  when  he  was  hand¬ 
ed  his  award. 

In  June  1968  SAKhAROV's  famous  essay,  "Thoughts  on  Prjgress,  Peaceful 
Coexistence  and  Intellectual  Freedom,111  called  by  Harrison  Salisbury  "a 
high  watermark  in  the  movement  for  liberalization  within  the  Communist 
world, began  circulating  in  "samizdat. "32  The  essay,  SAKhAROV's  first 
public  statement  that  could  be  considered  a  legitimate  threat  to  the  ex¬ 
isting  Soviet  regime,  propounded  the  view  that  the  world  was  on  the  brink 
of  disaster  and  that  only  through  cooperation  between  the  US  and  USSR 
could  this  fate  be  averted.  SAKhAROV  believed  that  this  cooperation  was 
inevitable  because  the  US  and  USSR  were  converging  as  a  result  of  mutual 
political,  economic  and  technological  borrowing,  leaving  eventually  no 
grounds  for  hostility  between  the  two  countries.  While  SAKhAROV  probably 
reflected  the  world  outlook  of  a  member  of  his  fellow  scientists,  there 
were  other  views  held  by  dissident  scientists.  One  such  view,  from  "nu¬ 
merous  representatives  of  the  technical  intelligentsia  of  Estonia,"  is¬ 
sued  in  July  1968  in  "samizdat,"  called  for  a  more  activist  program,  see¬ 
ing  in  SAKhAROV  too  much  faith  in  scientific  and  technological  progress 
in  achieving  world  peace  and  too  little  recognition  that  the  USSR  had  to 
change  radically  before  any  convergence  of  the  US  and  USSR  could  take 
place. 33  The  Estonians  called  on  the  leading  minds  of  Soviet  society  to 
come  up  with  programs  vhlch  would  fundamentally  change  Soviet  reality  in 
a  moral,  political,  and  economic  sense. 

Soviet  attempts  at  interference  in  Czechoslovak  internal  affairs  in 
July  1968  led  five  Communists,  one  of  whom  was  the  physicist  PAVLINChUK, 
to  write  an  open  letter  of  support  to  the  Czechoslovak  Communists  and  all 
the  Czechoslovak  people  on  28  July  1968. in  the  letter  the  five  ex¬ 
pressed  their  conviction  that  the  Soviet  Party-government  leadership  would 
not  use  armed  force  against  Czechoslovakia  for  fear  of  being  discredited 
and  losing  the  confidence  of  the  people.  The  five  disassociated  them* 
selves  from  the  "unobjective  and  one-sided"  reporting  of  the  events  in 

Czechoslovakia  in  the  Soviet  press,  and  indicated  that  the  Russian  people 
had  a  genuine  feeling  of  friendship  for  the  Czechoslovak  people. 

The  Soviet  government ' s  failure  to  realize  the  five  Communists 1  hope 
for  non-intervention  in  Czechoslovakia  vas  a  shock  to  many  Soviet  citi¬ 
zens.  LYuBARSKIY  called  the  Soviet  invasion  of  Czechoslovakia  a  heavy 
blov  for  himself,  for  many  of  his  friends  and  for  many  of  his  later  ac¬ 
quaintances.  35  five  people,  including  LITVINOV  and  V.  Del one,  grandson 
of  Academician  and  mathematician  S.  Delone,  and  son  of  chemist  I.  0.  De- 
lone,  demonstrated  at  Red  Square  on  25  August  1968  in  protest  of  the  So¬ 
viet  action  in  Czechoslovakia. 3°  They  were  brought  to  trial  in  October 
and  convicted.  On  1  December  1968  a  letter,  signed  by  ninety-five  peo¬ 
ple,  sixteen  of  vhom  were  scientists,  vas  sent  to  the  deputies  of  the 
Supreme  Soviets  of  the  USSR  and  Russian  Soviet  Federative  Socialist  Re¬ 
public  (RSFSR)  protesting  the  conviction. 3^  It  vas  alleged  in  the  let¬ 
ter  that  there  had  been  no  legal  basis  for  initiating  criminal  proceed¬ 
ings  against  the  defendants,  and  that  the  main  problem  vas  not  proce¬ 
dural  irregularities,  but  violations  of  the  civil  rights  guaranteed  in 
the  Soviet  Constitution,  the  freedom  of  speech  and  the  freedom  of  demon¬ 
stration.  The  ninety-five  called  upon  the  deputies  to  perform  their  du¬ 
ty  of  defending  these  freedoms  by  moving  for  the  dismissal  of  the  sen¬ 
tences  and  cessation  of  the  criminal  proceedings. 3° 

The  arrest  of  vriter  A.  T.  Marchenko  in  late  July  1968  sparked  a  let¬ 
ter  of  protest  to  the  procurator  of  the  region  in  vhich  Marchenko  vas  ar¬ 
rested.  The  letter  vas  signed  by  five  individuals,  including  LITVINOV, 
RUDAKOV  and  BELOGORODSKAYa.3*  BELOGORODSKAYa  vas  arrested  8  August  1968 
for  having  in  her  possession  petitions  calling  for  Marchenko's  release. 

Her  arrest,  in  turn,  vas  protested  by  LITVINOV,  KAPLAN  and  RUDAKOV.  3E- 
LOGORODSKAYa  vas  tried  in  February  1969  and  became  the  first  person  to  be 
tried  since  Stalinist  times  for  merely  supporting  a  dissident.^0  Up  to 
this  time,  people  had  been  fired  from  their  Jobs,  expelled  from  the  Par¬ 
ty,  or  kicked  out  of  school,  but  none  had  been  brought  to  trial.  BELOGO- 
RODSKAYa  had  not  vritten  or  even  distributed  the  petitions  she  vas  accus¬ 
ed  of  having  in  her  possession;  in  fact,  the  petitions,  in  the  form  of 
letters  addressed  to  various  Soviet  vr iters  asking  for  Marchenko's  re¬ 
lease,  were  found  in  a  purse  she  had  left  by  mistake  in  a  taxi.  BELO- 
GORODSKAYa's  step-sister,  L.  Bogoraz,  composed  the  letters  but  vas  not 
subjected  to  criminal  proceedings.  ^  BELOGORODSKAYa  vas  sentenced  to  one 
year  confinement. 

Mathematician  BURMISTROVICh,  who  had  been  involved  in  dissident  activi¬ 
ties  to  a  greater  extent  than  had  BELOGORODSKAYa,  vas  arrested  in  May  1968 
but  vas  not  brought  to  trial  until  May  1969 .  2  BURMISTROVICh  vas  accused 
of  distributing  "samizdat”  copies  of  the  literary  vorks  of  Sinyavskiy  and 
Daniyel  to  his  friends,  vho  vere,  as  it  turned  out,  scientists  themselves. 
BURMISTROVICh  had  hired  typists  to  copy  various  unpublishable  (in  the  US¬ 
SR)  literary  vorks,  including  Bulgakov,  Kafka,  Joyce,  Mandel'shtam,  Tsve- 
tayeva,  Sinyavskiy,  and  Daniyel,  because  he  vas  unable  to  acquire  them  in 
editions  that  vere  not  "samizdat."  BURMISTROVICh  gave  copies  of  these 
vorks  to  an  old  acquaintance  from  his  student  days  at  Moscov  State  Uni¬ 
versity,  mathematician  TURUNDAYeVAKAYa,  and  to  an  acquaintance  of  hers, 
chemist  BAGATUR'YaNTs.  BURMISTROVICh,  at  one  point,  had  asked  BAGATUR'Y- 
aNTs  to  reproduce  material  on  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial  and  soma 


poetry  by  Mandel'shtam  and  Tsvetayeva.  Hone  of  these  scientists  believed 
that  "samizdat"  vas  harmful  to  the  Soviet  system  or  that  they  were  doing 
anything  illegal.  At  the  trial  however,  3AGATUR ' YaiJTs  indicated  tnat  ne 
vas  ready  to  accept  the  official  position  on  "samizdat"  and  have  nothing 
to  do  with  it  in  the  future,  and  it  vas  BAGATUR'YaNTs  who,  five  months 
after  BURMISTROVICh's  arrest,  vent  to  the  KGB  and  signed  a  statement  ap¬ 
parently  disassociating  himself  from  BURMISTROVICh.  TURUNDAYe VSKAY a 
testified  that  she  enjoyed  "samizdat"  but  that  she  vas  threatened  by  the 
KGB  to  renounce  it,  under  the  threat  of  being  arrested  herself,  her  hus¬ 
band,  TURUNDAYeSKIY,  a  Party  member  and  also  a  mathematician,  testified 
that  he  had  read  some  of  the  "samizdat"  his  wife  had  acquired  and  thought 
that  the  "harmfulness"  of  the  material  depended  on  who  vas  reading  it. 

At  the  end  of  the  trial  BURMISTROVICh  indicated  that  he  would  no  longer 
insist  that  the  works  of  Sinyavskiy  and  Daniel  were  not  slanderous,  but 
he  repeated  his  assertion  that  he  turned  to  these  materials  to  "know  the 
truth."  He  asked  rhetorically,  can  it  be  that  the  truth  is  ideologically 
harmful,  and  ansvered  that  he  believed  that  the  Soviet  system  vas  strong 
enough  to  endure  any  truth.  Kis  confidence  in  the  system,  however,  did 
not  spare  him  from  receiving  a  three-year  sentence.  Bis  wife,  biologist 
KISLINA,  wrote  a  letter  to  several  Soviet  newspapers  and  the  procurator 
to  complain  about  the  illegalities  manifested  during  the  investigation 
of  her  husband's  case,  but  the  protests  came  to  naught.  3 

In  August  1968  two  other  scientists,  chemist  KVAChEVSKIY  and  physicist 
STUDENKOV,  were  arrested  for  alleged  dissident  activities,  k  They  were 
tried,  together  with  their  cohort  Gendler,  in  late  December  1968  in 
Leningrad.  KVAChEVSKIY  vas  accused  of  having  led  anti-Soviet  discussions 
at  his  home  in  196k  and  1965  and  of  having  distributed  LITVINOV'S  ques¬ 
tionnaire  on  trial  and  prison  procedures  to  former  political  prisoners. 
KVAChEVSKIY  had  been  acquainted  with  Leningrad  Marxists  and  fellow  chemist 
RONKIN  since  1957  and  had  obtained  material  from  RONKIN  and  fellow  Marxist 
KhAKhAYeV  only  two  days  prior  to  their  arrest  in  1965.  5  KVAChEVSKIY  had 
also  signed  one  of  the  letters  protesting  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial 
and  had  been  fired  from  his  Job  because  of  it.  0  He  refused  to  admit  any 
guilt  during  the  trial  and  was  sentenced  to  four  years  confinement. 
STUDEHKOV  vas  accused  of  anti-Soviet  agitation  and  propaganda,  as  veil 
as  illegally  brewing  alcohol  and  forging  documents.  He  admitted  his  guilt 
and  vas  sentenced  to  only  one  year  confinement.  STUDENKOV  had  constructed 
a  still  because,  as  Gendler  testified,  "We  were  too  poor  to  buy  vodka.” 
STUDENKOV  had  been  associated  vith  Gendler  and  KVAChEVSKIY  only  since 
19b7,  apparently  out  of  the  spirit  of  adventure.  STUDENKOV  had  prepared 
microfilms  of  "samizdat"  using  equipment  from  his  place  of  work  and,  af¬ 
ter  being  released  from  KGB  custody  for  a  short  period  of  time  and  sub¬ 
sequently  destroying  the  microfilm,  he  vent  around  the  institute  bragging 
about  how  easily  he  had  made  it  through  the  KGB.  He  had  also  forged  doc¬ 
uments,  enaoling  a  group  of  people  to  travel  at  a  cut  rate.  STUDENKOV's 
sentence  vas  comparatively  light  because  of  his  confession  of  guilt  and 
the  important  scientific  research  he  vas  involved  in.  He  worked  in  a 
laboratory,  which  vas  involved  in  highly  classified  explosives  worx,  at 
the  Leningrad  Physico-Technical  Institute}  the  laboratory  vas  so  impor¬ 
tant  that  it  allegedly  was  subordinate  not  to  the  director  of  tne  insti¬ 
tute  but  to  the  Minister  of  Defense  himself.  STUDENKOV ' s  attorney  used 
the  importance  of  STUDENKOV's  scientific  work  to  obtain  a  reduction  in 
his  sentence.  One  point  made  by  the  attorney  vas  that  even  in  prison 


ST'uDEiiKOV  aaa  been  wording  on  scientific  setters.  In  IT UDEIiKOV’s  final 
words  to  the  court  he  promised  to  devote  the  rest  of  his  life  to  science. 

Another  point  to  make  about  the  kVACnEVSiilY-STUDLHKOV-Geadler  trial  is 
tnat  KVACnEVSKIY ’ s  older  brother,  geologist  C.  KVAChEVSKIY,  naa  wanted  to 
serve  as  his  brother’s  attorney  (KVAChEVSKIY  nad  refused  to  use  the  state- 
appointed  attorney)  but  was  sent  on  temporary  duty  out  of  town  during  tne 
trial. b7  C.  KVAChEVSKIY  shoved  up  much  later,  ial>77,  signing  a  protest 
letter  to  tne  Politburo  on  the  new  Constitution.**® 

To  sum  up  the  period  1966-68,  let  us  examine  the  official  oacklasn, 
otaer  than  arrests,  which  accompanied  the  collective  letters.  At  least 
eight  scientists  were  kicked  out  of  the  Party, ^9  fifteen  were  removed 
from  their  institutions, 50  at  least  two  received  Party  reprimands, 51  and 
three  were  not  allowed  to  continue  teaching. 52  In  all,  at  the  very  least 
thirty-five  scientists  were,  without  benefit  of  trial,  punished  for  their 
actions  in  this  period.  It  is  clear  that  the  message  from  the  author¬ 
ities  was  received  by  the  other  protesting  scientists,  for  only  about  for¬ 
ty  of  the  more  than  two  hundred  and  eighty  scientists  who  first  protest¬ 
ed  in  1967  and  1968  continued  to  dissent  afterwards. 53 

2.  1969-71:  The  beginning  of  dissident  groups  and  the  Jewish  movement. 

The  first  "legal"  dissident  group  in  the  USSR,  in  the  sense  that  it 
was  not  formed  underground  and  that  it  strictly  adhered  to  Soviet  lav, 
was  created  in  May  1969  by  fifteen  individuals,  five  of  whom,  T.  VELIKA¬ 
NOVA,  KOVALEV,  LAVUT,  PLYuShch  and  POD’YaPOL’SKIY,  were  scientists. 5b 
The  group,  called  "The  Initiative  Group  for  the  Defense  of  Human  Rights 
in  the  USSR"  (The  Initiative  Group),  performed  basically  the  same  func¬ 
tions  as  did  the  compilers  of  the  Chronicle  of  Current  Events,  collecting 
and  disseminating  information  on  violations  of  human  rights  in  tne  USSR. 
It  would  not  be  surprising,  in  fact,  if  the  Initiative  Group  turned  out 
to  have  been  the  driving  force  behind  the  Chronicle .  for  in  197  b,  over  a 
year  after  the  suppression  of  the  Journal,  three  people,  all  members  of 
the  Initiative  Group  (KOVALEV,  T.  VELUCAHOVA  and  T.  Knodorovich) ,  public¬ 
ly  assumed  responsibility  for  its  resurrection  and  continued  life. 5 5  a 
second  "legal"  dissident  group,  the  "Human  Rights  Committee,"  also  known 
as  the  "Sakharov  Committee,"  was  organized  on  b  November  1970  by  three 
physicists,  SAKhAROV,  ChALIDZE  and  TVERKOKhLEBOV . 56  This  group  assumed 
a  more  legalistic  tack  than  did  the  Initiative  Group,  concentrating  much 
more  of  their  effort  on  legal  research  and  consultation  in  matters  con¬ 
cerning  human  rights.  Together,  these  two  groups  formed  rallying  points 
for  dissidents  in  the  1969*71  period  and  thereafter,  and  provided  valu¬ 
able  leaoership  and  research  experience  for  their  members,  many  of  warns 
later  formed  new  dissident  groups.  Without  these  groups,  it  is  doubtful 
tnat  tne  dissident  movement  could  have  continued  following  the  reprisals 
meted  out  by  the  authorities  to  signers  of  tne  collective  protest  letters 

of  1967-06. 

The  Jevish  emigration  movement  began  with  protests  over  the  arrests  of 


200  Jews  in  the  vake  of  the  15  June  1970  hijacking  attempt  of  a  Soviet 
aircraft  in  Leningrad  and  the  subsequent  trials  in  December  1970,  and  in 
May  and  June  1971.  The  first  trial,  vhich  heard  the  case  of  the  so-call¬ 
ed  "Leningrad  11,"  who  were  the  Jews  who  had  actually  boarded  the  air¬ 
craft,  resulted  in  death  sentences  for  tvo  of  the  alleged  hijackers. 57 
In  protest  of  these  sentences,  five  scientists,  tvo  of  idiom  were  Jevs 
and  »ll  of  whom  were  connected  vith  the  "Human  Rights  Committee,”  sent 
a  telegram  to  Podgornyy  on  27  December  1970,  in  vhich  they  asked  that  the 
tvo  hijackers  not  be  executed  and  that  the  accused,  along  vith  other  Jevs 
wanting  to  emigrate,  be  alloved  to  leave  the  Soviet  Union.'®  SAKhAROV  al¬ 
so  vrote  an  open  letter  to  Presidents  Nixon  and  Podgornyy  in  vhich  he  _ 
called  on  the  former  to  guarantee  a  fair  trial  for  Angela  Davis  and  on 
the  latter  to  lessen  the  sentences  of  the  "Leningrad  11.  *  Also  pro¬ 

testing  the  trial  vere  fifty-nine  Soviet  Jevs,  eleven  of  vhom  vere  scien¬ 
tists.60  The  tvo  trials  in  1971,  that  of  the  "Leningrad  9"  in  May.  and 
of  the  "Kishinev  9"  in  June,  had  several  scientists  as  defendants;  more 
about  these  trials  will  be  included  in  Chapter  II. 

A  number  of  other  significant  events  occurred  in  the  1969-71  period 
vhich  affected  dissident  scientists,  events  vhich  witness  the  continuing 
pressure  brought  to  bear  on  all  dissidents  by  the  authorities  and  the 
activism  on  the  part  of  scientists  in  support  of  their  ovn  dissident 
goals  as  veil  as  other  dissidents. 

On  2U  March  1969  former  kolkhoz  chairman  and  dissident  I.  A.  Yakimo- 
vich  vas  arrested  for  allegedly  slandering  the  Soviet  system.  Yakimovich 
had  previously  protested  the  Gibzburg-Galanskov  trial  in  a  personal  let¬ 
ter  to  Suslov  vhich  vas  later  published  abroad  and  had  protested  the  So¬ 
viet  invasion  of  Czechoslovakia.  On  2  April  tventy-five  people,  eight  of 
vhom  vere  scientists,  signed  a  protest  letter  in  his  support,  expressing 
shock  that  Yakimovich  had  been  arrested  and  confidence  that  he  vas  inno¬ 
cent.  ^  The  protesters  further  stated  that  they  considered  it  their  duty 
to  do  everything  possible  vithin  legal  limits  to  stop  this  "shameful  ac¬ 
tion  of  the  punitive  organs." 

On  13  April  1969  a  mathematics  student  at  Latvian  State  University, 

II 'ya  RIPS,  attempted  self-immolation  at  the  foot  of  the  Freedom  Monument 
in  Riga  in  protest  of  the  Soviet  occupation  of  Czechoslovakia.  ^  He  vas 
later  accused  of  anti-Soviet  agitation  and  on  2  October  vas  sentenced  to 
a  period  of  hospitalization  at  a  psychiatric  hospital.  He  vas  released 
23  April  1971  and  vas  alloved  to  emigrate  to  Israel  in  January  1972. 

RIPS  vas  an  outstanding  mathematician  and  vas  slated  to  go  to  the  Insti¬ 
tute  of  Physics  of  the  Latvian  Academy  of  Sciences  at  the  end  of  the 
school  year  in  1969.  He  vas  one  of  the  vinners  of  the  Internation  Mathe¬ 
matics  Olympics  for  Schoolchildren  at  the  age  of  15,  bad  entered  the  uni¬ 
versity  at  age  16,  and  his  senior  paper,  in  the  opinion  of  bis  professors, 
could  have  served  as  the  basis  for  a  doctoral  dissertation.  RIPS'  phys¬ 
ics  teacher,  LADYZhENSKIY ,  vas  questioned  about  RIPl'  after  the  incident  - 
apparently  LADYZhENSKIY  had  supported  RIPS'  protest  -  and  vas  later  fired 
from  his  job  at  the  university.  LADYZhENSKIY  vas  convicted  of  distribut¬ 
ing  "samizdat"  in  December  1973  and  sentenced  to  three  years  imprison¬ 
ment  . 

n7.hPrrT.EV  participated  in  the  6  June  1969  Crimean  Tatar  demonstration 


in  Moscov  on  Mayakovskiy  Square. ^  The  demonstrators  demanded  a  solution 
to  the  Crimean  Tatar  nationality  problem  and  the  release  of  political 
prisoners.  Although  the  demonstrators  vere  not  subsequently  arrested 
(they  vere  merely  beaten  and  expelled  from  the  city),  DZhEMILEV  had  ex¬ 
pected  arrest  for  the  protest.  He  stated  that  he  had  to  protest  because 
he  refused  to  give  in  to  the  abominations  then  running  rampant  in  the 
USSR  through  his  own  inaction  and  passivity. 

The  arrest  of  rexigious  writer  A.  Levitin-Krasnov  on  12  September  1969 
for  his  support  of  dissidents  and  freedom  of  worship  in  the  USSR  elicited 
a  protest  letter,  signed  by  thirty-two  individuals,  six  of  whom  vere  sci¬ 
entists,  on  26  September.”?  One  of  these  scientists  also  signed  a  letter 
from  seven  Christians  to  the  Vorld  Council  of  Churches  in  September  call¬ 
ing  for  Levitin-Krasnov 's  release,  along  with  the  release  of  mathematics 
teacher  TALANTOV,  who  had  previously  been  sentenced  to  two  years  conf la¬ 
ment  for  religious  dissidence.0”  The  seven  Christians  signing  the  letter 
asked  the  Council  to  intercede  on  behalf  of  these  two  dissidents  and  to 
assist  in  the  normalization  of  religious  life  in  the  USSR. 

Solzhenitsyn  was  expelled  from  the  Union  of  Soviet  Writers  in  December 
1969  for  his  political  vlevs,  and  his  expulsion  touched  off  a  protest 
from  a  number  of  Moscov  intellectuals.  One  letter,  sent  to  the  Writers' 
Union  on  9  December  1969,  expressed  the  viev  that  Solzhenitsyn's  expul¬ 
sion  was  another  manifestation  of  Stalinism  in  Soviet  society.  The  let¬ 
ter  was  signed  by  thirty-nine  people,  ten  of  idiom  vere  scientists. ”7 

In  March  19T0  physicists  SAidiAROV  and  TURChlN  and  historian  R.  A.  Med¬ 
vedev,  brother  of  biologist  MEDVEDEV,  released  an  appeal  for  the  gradual 
democratization  of  the  USSR  in  a  letter  addressed  to  Brezhnev,  Kosygin 
and  Podgornyy.®”  The  three  dissidents  asserted  that  technological  and 
economic  progress  vas  integrally  connected  to  the  democratization  of  the 
state,  and  that  without  the  freedoms  of  information  and  speech  the  state 
could  not  continue  to  develop  in  science  and  technology.  They  cited  as 
an  example  the  decline  of  Soviet  technology  by  failure  of  the  USSR  to  send 
a  man  to  the  moon  ahead  of  the  US.  They  did  not  question  the  role  of  the 
Party  in  the  governing  of  the  USSR,  but  they  did  maintain  that  democrati¬ 
zation  should  be  thorough,  including,  presumably,  the  Party  itself.  The 
authors  further  asserted  that  these  views  vere  not  theirs  alone,  but  vere 
shared  to  one  degree  or  another  by  a  significant  part  of  the  Soviet  intel¬ 

Mathematician  ChERHYShOV  vas  arrested  in  March  1970  for  anti-Soviet 
propaganda  and  vas  incarcerated  in  a  psychiatric  hospital.*^  He  had  writ¬ 
ten  a  number  of  philosophical  etudes  on  such  subjects  as  the  spiritual 
liberation  of  the  Russian  people  and  bad  given  this  material  to  two  peo¬ 
ple,  for  which  he  was  arrested.  While  there  were  no  protest  letters  which 
accompanied  ChERHYShOV 's  arrest,  he  vas  a  popular  teacher  at  a  technolog¬ 
ical  in?* itute  and  vas  on  good  terms  with  the  administration  and  his  col¬ 
leagues,  so  it  could  be  assumed  that'  his  arrest  aroused  some  feeling  of 
sympathy  and  support  for  him  among  fellow  scientists. 

The  forceable  incarceration  of  MEDVEDEV  in  a  psychiatric  hospital  on 
29  May  1970  evoked  a  wave  of  dissent  from  the  scientific  connunity. 

MEDVEDEV  was  a  highly  influential  scientist  and  a  firm  anti-Stalinist 
Marxist  vho  written  several  books  on  Soviet  science  and  scientists 
which  appeared  in  "samizdat.”  On  4  June  1970  twenty  scientists  signed  a 
letter  to  the  Ministers  of  Health  and  Internal  Affairs  and  to  the  Procu¬ 
rator  General  in  which  they  expressed  their  conviction  that  the  hospi¬ 
talization  was  an  illegal  act,  one  which  had  aroused  their  concern  and 
alarm. 70  They  called  for  MEDVEDEV'S  release  and  for  legal,  action  to  be 
taken  against  those  vho  had  illegally  deprived  MEDVEDEV  of  his  freedom. 

The  scientists  further  saw  in  MEDVEDEV's  hospitalization  a  danger  for  them 
all,  that 

no  honest  and  principled  scientist  can  be  assured  of 
his  own  security  if  similar  reasons  can  cause  repres¬ 
sion  in  the  form  of  incarceration  in  a  psychiatric 
hospital  for  an  indeterminate  period  of  time  with  the 
loss  of  all  human  rights,  except  the  right  to  be  the 
object  of  the  doctor's  examination. 7^ 

Also  on  k  June  1970  an  open  letter  to  "Scientists,  Scholars,  and  Ar¬ 
tists  of  the  Whole  World"  was  written  by  an  anonymous  group  of  "scientif¬ 
ic  workers"  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences  who  called  for  support  of  MEDVE¬ 
DEV.  7*  MEDVEDEV's  incarceration  was  viewed  by  this  group  as  only  one  ex¬ 
ample  of  many  of  lawlessness  in  the  USSR,  but  it  did  evidence  an  escala¬ 
tion  in  arbitrariness  in  that  it  was  the  first  time  the  authorities  did 
not  try  for  even  a  semblance  of  legality.  The  group  indicated  that  it 
was  appealing  to  the  rest  of  the  world  as  a  last  resort,  for  it  had  learn¬ 
ed  that  appealing  to  Soviet  authorities  meant  only  further  repression. 

The  "scientific  workers"  called  on  their  colleagues  throughout  the  world 
to  boycott  all  Soviet  scientific?,  technological  and  cultural  exchanges 
and  to  stop  negotiations  with  the  USSR  until  MEDVEDEV's  release.  Other¬ 
wise,  they  saw  the  beginning  of  a  new  mass  pogrom  of  Soviet  scientists. 

MEDVEDEV  was  released  on  17  June  1970,  after  a  meeting  of  the  Minister 
of  Health,  Academy  of  Sciences  President  Keldysh,  SAKhAROV,  KAPITsA,  AS- 
TAUROV  and  other  scientists  who  had  supported  MEDVEDEV. 73  MEDVEDEV' s  re¬ 
lease  was  apparently  contingent  on  his  promise  not  to  participate  in  fur¬ 
ther  dissident  activities. 75 

On  20  June  1970  thirty-one  people,  seven  of  whom  were  scientists,  sign¬ 
ed  an  open  letter  expressing  the  fear  that  MEDVEDEV's  experience  could 
mean  that  anyone,  regardless  of  his  scientific  or  social  contributions, 
could  be  dealt  with  "medically. "75  They  also  expressed  the  hope  that  the 
scientific  community  would  be  as  vocal  in  support  of  other  people  facing 
the  threat  of  hospitalization  as  it  had  been  of  MEDVEDEV.  They  recogniz¬ 
ed  that  a  "corporation  of  scientists"  had  defended  MEDVEDEV  and  they  main¬ 
tained  that  those  who  did  not  belong  to  any  "corporation"  needed  support 
that  was  Just  as  whole-hearted  and  passionate.  The  scientists  who  signed 
this  letter,  it  should  be  noted,  were  not  from  the  scientific  elite  which 
had  signed  the  earlier  protests.  As  "ordinary"  scientists,  they  might 
have  been  trying  to  cast  off  the  tinge  of  parochialism  and  elitism  that 
might  have  surrounded  the  massive  support  of  MEDVEDEV  from  the  scientific 

Mathematician  PIMENOV,  vho  had  been  in  trouble  with  Soviet  authorities 


in  the  past,  was  arrested  in  July  1970  and  tried  and  convicted  in  October 
of  the  sane  year  for  distribution  of  "samizdat"  wnich  slandered  the  Sovi¬ 
et  system. 7o  PIMENOV  had  been  sent  to  a  psychiatric  hospital  in  19^9  for 
submitting  a  request  to  leave  the  Komsomol  and  was  arrested  in  1957  for 
writing  articles  on  the  Hungarian  Revolution  and  for  attempting  to  fora 
an  anti-Soviet  group  among  university  students.  He  received  a  ten-year 
sentence  for  his  activities,  of  which  he  served  only  six  years.  He  sub¬ 
sequently  went  on  to  get  his  candidate  and  doctoral  degrees .77  On  11 
November  1970  ten  scientists  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
USSR  in  which  they  expressed  their  concern  over  the  severity  of  PIMENOV’ s 
sentence  (five  years  in  exile)  for  actions  that  in  a  democratic  society 
would  be  considered  normal. 78  They  also  protested  the  ambiguous  nature 
of  the  crime  of  slandering  the  Soviet  system  and  the  fact  that  such  trials 
were  "closed."  It  vas  a  sign  of  PIMENOV'S  importance  as  a  mathematician 
that,  not  only  did  he  not  receive  a  prison  term,  he  did  not  have  to  cur¬ 
tail  his  scientific  activity  while  in  exile.  A  special  department  of  the 
Komi  Branch  of  the  USSR  Academy  of  Sciences  was  established  for  him  in 
Syktyvkar  so  that  he  could  continue  working  in  his  mathematics  specialty. 

The  hospitalization  of  dissident  N.  Gorbanevskaya  on  July  7,  1970  and 
the  arrest  of  her  friends,  V.  Tel'nikov  and  Yu.  Vishnevskaya,  who  had  at¬ 
tempted  to  attend  her  trial,  evoked  a  letter  of  protest  in  July  from 
nineteen  people,  seven  of  whom  were  scientists. 79  The  protesters  com¬ 
plained  that  these  incidents  showed  that  all  it  took  to  be  persecuted  by 
the  authorities  now  was  friendship  with  a  dissident,  the  first  time  this 
happened  since  Stalinist  times.  They  further  asserted  that  a  man  can 
lose  ell  his  rights  and  freedoms  except  one  without  losing  his  humanity. 
The  final  freedom  was  the  right  to  love  someone  else.  The  motivation  for 
sending  this  protest  letter,  they  affirmed,  was  to  show  that  they  had  not 
lost  their  humanity. 

On  25  September  1970  a  memorial  to  biologist  N.  I.  Vavilov,  who  had 
been  persecuted  by  Stalin  and  had  perished  in  a  labor  camp,  was  dedicated 
in  a  Saratov  cemetery  by  Vavilov's  son.80  The  younger  Vavilov  had  col¬ 
lected  money  for  two  years  from  Soviet  biologists  and  the  elder  Vavilov's 
students,  colleagues  and  friends.  The  authorities  monitored  who  was  col¬ 
lecting  money  for  the  memorial  and  in  connection  with  this  questioned  a 
number  of  important  scientists  from  Moscow,  Leningrad  and  Saratov  at  their 
institutes.  Several  of  them,  in  fact,  received  Party  reprimands. 

The  decision  of  the  Nobel  Committee  to  avard  Solzhenitsyn  the  Nobel 
Prize  in  1970  was  applauded  by  a  group  of  thirty-seven  people,  twelve  of 
vhcm  were  scientists,  in  a  letter  to  the  Committee  on  10  October  1970.^1 
The  signers  of  the  letter,  recognizing  that  the  avarding  of  the  Nobel 
Prize  to  Solzhenitsyn  might  lead  to  a  new  wave  of  denunciations  of  the 
vriter,  considered  it  their  duty  to  express  their  gratitude  publicly  to 
Solzhenitsyn  for  his  work  and  to  condemn  the  denunciations  as  a  national 

Biologist  STROKATAYa,  wife  of  convicted  dissident  S.  Karavanskiy,  was 
arrested  8  December  1970  and  charged  with  the  distribution  of  "samizdat."® 
She  nad  been  a  witness  at  her  husband's  trial  and  had  been  accused  of  bad 
conduct  during  it;  in  fact,  she  was  threatened  with  the  loss  of  her  Job 
unless  she  changed  her  behavior.  On  21  December  1970  five  dissidents. 


including  historian  P.  Yakir  and  Ukrainian  nationalist  V.  Chomovol ,  an¬ 
nounced  the  formation  of  a  "Citizen's  Committee  for  the  Defense  of  Nina 
Strokataya,"  which  vas  to  collect  information  pertaining  to  STROKATAYa's 
caie,  collect  money  to  aide  STROKATAYa  and  her  husband,  and  demand  that 
STROKATAYa  be  given  her  rights  to  choose  a  lawyer  and  to  have  an  "open" 
trial. 33  In  case  the  demands  of  this  committee  were  not  met,  the  five 
dissidents  vowed  to  turn  to  the  United  Nations'  Committee  on  the  Rights 
of  Man.  STROKATAYa  was  sentenced  19  May  1972  to  four  years  confinement. 

On  2U  March  1971  ChALIDZE's  apartment  was  searched  and  a  number  of 
documents  and  files  were  confiscated,  including  issues  of  the  Chronicle 
of  Current  Events. 3^  SAKhAROV  protested  this  search  in  a  letter  to  the 
Minister  of  Internal  Affairs,  saying  that  the  archives  and  materials 
were  necessary  for  the  work,  of  the  Human  Rights  Committee,  to  which  both 
of  them  belonged. &5  On  30  March  1971  ChALIDZE  had  to  report  to  the  KGB 
to  answer  questions  on  foreigners  he  had  met  with  during  the  month  and 
what  he  had  given  them. 86 

The  arrest  and  psychological  testing  of  dissident  V.  Bukovskiy  on  29 
March  L971  elicited  a  protest  letter  from  fifty  individuals,  thirteen  of 
whom  were  scientists. 87  Scientists  SAKhAROV,  LEOKTOVICh  and  ShAFAREVICh 
and  writer  A.  Galich  also  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Procurator  General  and 
the  Minister  of  Justice  in  December  1971*  Just  before  Bukovskiy's  trial, 
in  which  they  expressed  their  conviction  that  there  was  no  basis  for 
Bukovskiy's  arrest  and  trial  and  conveyed  their  hope  that  his  trial  would 
be  objective,  "open",  and  would  honor  all  the  defendant's  rights. 8° 

3.  1972-73.  Massive  government  crackdown:  Chronicle  suppressed,  wide- 

scale  persecution. 

The  Soviet  authorities  had  their  greatest  successes  in  the  1972-73 
period  in  terms  of  crushing  dissent:  The  Chronicle  of  Current  Events  was 
forced  to  cease  publication,  a  number  of  prominent  dissidents  were  ar¬ 
rested,  and  SAKhAROV,  the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  human  rights  movement 
in  the  USSR,  was  publicly  condemned.  It  probably  seemed  to  many  dissi¬ 
dents  at  the  time  that  the  Soviet  dissident  movement  was  approaching  its 
final  days.  It  is  difficult  to  determine  exactly  what  was  the  turning 
point.  It  might  have  been  the  outrage  over  the  terrorization  of  SAKhAROV 
in  late  October  1973  or  the  establishment  of  the  Soviet  Section  of  Amnes¬ 
ty  International  in  toe  same  month.  Whatever  the  case,  by  197 ^  the  dissi¬ 
dent  movement  had  regained  its  vitality,  despite  the  continuation  of  ar¬ 
rests  and  persecutions. 

According  to  TVERDOKhLEBOV ,  from  the  beginning  of  1972.  to  March  1973 
at  least  thirty-five  people,  seven  of  whan  were  scientists,  had  been  in¬ 
terrogated  by  the  KGB  on  the  publication  and  distribution  of  the  Chroni¬ 
cle  of  Current  Events. 89  As  a  result  of  the  authorities'  pressure,  the 
Chronicle  ceased  publication  from  October  1972  until  the  spring  of  1971*, 
depriving  the  dissident  movement  of  a  mouthpiece  and  source  of  information. 


Mathematician  PLYuShch,  a  member  of  the  Initiative  Group,  was  arrested 
15  January  1972  for  distributing  "samizdat”  and  for  allegedly  anti-Soviet 
conversations.  PLYuShch  had  also  written  a  letter  to  the  editors  of  the 
newspaper  Komsomolskaya  pravda  in  January  1963  protesting  the  Ginzburg- 
Galanskov  trial ,  for  which  he  was  removed  from  his  job. 90  He  was  ruled 
mentally  ill  at  his  trial  in  late  January  1973  and  was  incarcerated  in  a 
psychiatric  hospital.  One  of  the  witnesses  at  PLYuShch* s  trial.,  a  math¬ 
ematician  and  Candidate  of  (Physico-mathematical)  Sciences  identified  on¬ 
ly  as  V.,  had  been  pressured  by  the  KGB  into  denouncing  PLYuShch  and  tes¬ 
tified  that  PLYuShch  had  given  him  "samizdat"  material. 91  The  matnema- 
tician  had  been  close  to  PLYuShch  in  the  years  prior  to  his  arrest  and, 
whether  because  of  his  relationship  with  PLYuShch  or  the  fact  that  he  was 
caught  with  "samizdat"  in  his  apartment,  he  was  fired  and  was  without 
work  for  a  period  of  time.  The  KGB  worked  on  him,  alternating  threats 
with  enticements  (a  job  and  an  apartment),  and  finally  achieved  its  goal. 
The  striking  similarity  of  this  "betrayal"  to  the  "betrayal"  at  LYuBAR- 
SKIY*s  trial  only  three  months  later  (see  below)  leads  one  to  believe 
that  the  authorities  had  decided  that  pitting  one  scientist  against  anoth¬ 
er  was  a  very  useful  tactic. 

LYuEAPSKIY  was  arrested  17  January  1972  and  was  sentenced  to  five  years 
confinement  at  the  conclusion  of  his  trial  in  la»e  October  1973  for  posses 
ion  and  distribution  of  "samizdat. "92  LYuBARSKIY  had  not  participated  in 
any  demonstrations,  signed  any  protest  letters,  or  written  any  "samizdat"; 
he  simply  turned  to  "samizdat"  in  the  aft irmath  of  the  Soviet  invasion  of 
Czechoslovakia  to  acquire  additional  information  on  the  event.  LYuEABSXIY 
admitted  that  he  had  received  ^pme  of  his  "samizdat"  from  VOL' PIN,  who, 
in  the  meantime,  had  emigrated  to  the  US.  A  fellow  scientist,  close 
friend,  and  co-author  of  LYuBABSKIY ' a ,  B.  M.  Vladimirskiy,  was  apparently 
pressured  into  testifying  against  LYuBARSXIY  at  the  trial;  the  fact  that 
a  personal  conversation  between  the  two  friends  had  been  used  as  evidence 
of  a  criminal  act  was  cited  by  LYuBARSKIY  as  a  dangerous  precedent.  Math¬ 
ematician  KRISTI  was  placed  in  a  psychiatric  hospital  on  2  November  1972 
for  attempting  to  attend  LYuBARSKIY' s  trial;93  she  was  released  only  after 
SAKhAROV's  intercession  on  29  November. 

Mathematician  30L0NKIN  was  arrested  in  June  1972  for  dissemination  of 
the  Chronicle  and  other  "samizdat"  documents,  for  which  ae  was  sentenced 
to  four  years  confinement  and  two  years  exile. 9^  During  his  imprisonment 
his  doctorate  was  annulled  and  his  scientific  works  on  cybernetics  con¬ 
fiscated.  He  was  arrested  again  in  April  1978,  just  weeks  before  the  end 
of  his  exile,  for  allegedly  stealing  government  property  and  sentenced  to 
another  three  years  in  confinement. 95  SAKhAROV,  believing  that  the  reason 
for  BOLONKIN's  second  sentence  was  the  KGB's  fear  that  he  might  emigrate, 
wrote  a  letter  on  15  August  1978  to  participants  of  the  International 
Congress  of  Mathematicians  in  Helsinki  with  an  appeal  to  come  to  their 
colleague’s  aid. 96 

On  28  September  1972  mathematician  ShIKhANOVTCh  was  arrested  and 
placed  in  complete  isolation  pending  investigation  of  his  case. 97  On  23 
January  1973  SAKhAROV  and  his  wife  attempted  to  have  ShIKkANOVICh  relea¬ 
sed  into  their  custody,  but  their  attempt  was  unsuccessful.  Finally,  on 
5  July  1973  SAKnAROV,  his  wife,  and  geophysicist  P0D"YaP0L*SKIY,  having 
found  out  that  ShIKhANOVICh  had  undergone  a  psychiatric  examination  and 

had  been  aeterainea  to  be  mentally  ill,  wrote  an  open  letter  to  all  psy- 
cniatrists,  doctors,  and  mathematicians  of  the  world,  as  well  as  all  peo¬ 
ple  on  eartn,  appealing  for  an  ena  to  psychiatric  repression.^0 

In  June  1972  the  Supreme  Soviet  of  the  ESFSE  issued  a  decree  setting 
minimum  fines  to  be  imposed  on  people  giving  prisoners  "illegal."  provi¬ 
sions.  SAkhAP.OV  and  LEOl.'TOVICh,  appealing  as  fellow  scientists,  sent  a 
telegram  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Supreme  Soviet  of  the  RSFSR,  Academician 
and  physicist  M.  D.  Miilionschikov,  wuo  was  also  the  deputy  director  of 
the  Institute  of  Atomic  Energy  (LEONTOVICh's  Institute),  in  which  they 
expressed  tneir  fear  that  the  decree  would  mean  worse  conditions  for 
prisoners,  who  existed  in  a  state  of  chronic  starvation  as  it  was.^ 
SAKhAP.OV  and  LZONTOVICh  wrote  that  they  wanted  to  believe  tnat  Million- 
shchikov  would  not  refuse  to  take  part  in  overturning  this  decree;  it  is 
likely  that  both  scientists  knew  Millionshchikov  personally.  They  also 
called  on  the  delegates  to  the  Supreme  Soviet  to  speak  up  for  reform  of 
penal  legislation  to  eliminate  starvation  in  prisons. 

In  September  1972  two  letters  calling  for  amnesty  for  political  pris¬ 
oners  and  the  abolishment  of  capital  pu  ishment  were  sent  to  the  Supreme 
Soviet  of  the  USSR.  These  measures,  to  be  in  honor  of  the  50th  Anniver¬ 
sary  of  the  Formation  of  the  Soviet  Union,  were  proposed  by  a  group  of 
fifty-odd  people,  nearly  half  of  whom  were  scientists.  The  first  letter 
called  for  the  release  of  all  prisoners  convicted  of  (Soviet  Criminal 
Code)  Articles  190-1,  190-2,  190-3,  70  and  72,  or  in  connection  witn  re¬ 
ligious  beliefs  or  the  desire  to  emigrate. 100  The  second  letter  request¬ 
ed  the  repeal  of  capital  punishment  on  moral  grounds  and  on  the  grounds 
that  it  was  not  socially  justifiable. 101 

One  minor,  although  quite  pathetic,  trial  involving  a  number  of  sci¬ 
entists  was  the  trial  of  physicist  TEMKIN  for  custody  of  his  daughter. 
TEMKIN  had  received  permission  to  emigrate  on  19  October  1972  with  his 
daughter,  but,  when  they  went  to  pick  up  the  visas  on  23  October,  he  was 
told  that  his  wife,  from  who  he  was  divorced,  had  refused  to  let  her 
daughter  leave  the  Soviet  Union. 102  After  TEMKIN  and  his  daughter,  who 
wanted  to  emigrate,  had  written  to  a  number  of  agencies  and  officials  in 
both  the  USSR  and  abroad,  his  wife  took  him  to  court  to  deprive  him  of 
his  parental  rights.  At  the  17  January  1973  trial  the  scientists  V.  LEV- 
ICh,  KhAIT,  RAYeVSKIY,  YaKhot,  and  KUSTANOVICh  all  vouched  for  TEMKIN ’ s 
character  and  parental  qualities ; 103  the  court,  however,  decided  in 
favor  of  TEMKIN1 s  wife.  In  February  1973  his  daughter  was  seized  at 
TEMKIN ' s  mother's  apartment  by  the  police  and  returned  to  her  mother; 
TEMKIN  was  arrested  for  resisting  the  police.  On  IS  June  1973  he  declar¬ 
ed  a  hunger  strike,  and  emigrated  several  days  later.  10** 

On  3  January  1973  BELOGORODSKAYa  was  arrested  for  anti-Soviet  propa¬ 
ganda  in  connection  with  the  dissemination  of  "samizdat".  She  had  been 
arrested  in  19b6  (see  above)  on  a  similar  charge.  During  the  summer  of 
1973  ner  husband's  grandfather.  Academician  B.  Delone,  and  KAPITsA  inter¬ 
ceded  on  her  behalf,  and  their  support  was  apparently  significant,  for 
she  was  released  1 6  November  1973  and  all  charges  were  dropped. 105 

In  February  1973  the  Soviet  press  delivered  its  first  attacks  on 
SAKhAROV's  dissident  activities,  a  series  of  attacks  wnicn  culminated  in 


the  23  August  1973  letter  signed  forty  academicians, 10°  at  least  se¬ 
ven  of  whom  were  fellow  physicists  and  one  of  vhom,  EJIGEL'GARDT,  had 
signed  a  196b  protest  letter  on  changes  in  the  Soviet  criminal  code  which 
could  he  used  to  persecute  dissidents  (see  above).  The  academicians  cen¬ 
sured  SAKhAROV  for  his  memoranda,  which  slandered  "the  governmental  sys¬ 
tem  and  the  internal  and  external  policies  of  the  Soviet  Union."  They 
also  claimed  that  he  was  opposed  to  the  USSR's  policies  on  the  "relaxa¬ 
tion  of  international  tensions,"  a  position  which  hurt  the  reputation  of 
the  Soviet  scientist. 

On  15  August  1973  SAKhAROV  was  called  in  to  talk,  with  the  Pirst  Depu¬ 
ty  Procurator  General  and  was  given  a  warning  to  stop  associating  with 
foreigners. 107  SAKhAROV  had  several  days  previously  granted  an  inter¬ 
view  to  a  Swedish  reporter,  to  whom  he  explained  his  evolution  as  a  dis¬ 
sident.  He  admitted  in  the  interview  that  when  he  wrote  his  famous  1968 
essay,  in  which  he  saw  the  convergence  of  socialism  and  capitalism,  he 
was  too  far  removed  from  the  basic  problems  of  people  because  of  his  pri¬ 
vileged  status  and  environment . 108  He  had  then  seen  Soviet  socialism  as 
inherently  positive,  he  claimed,  but  since  then  had  come  to  see  it  mainly 
as  a  form  of  state  capitalism.  Eventually,  he  lost  faith  in  socialism 
completely.  SAKhAROV  saw  the  Soviet  system  as  being  internally  quite  sta¬ 
ble  and  had  little  faith  or  hope  in  Western  support  of  Soviet  dissidents. 
The  First  Deputy  considered  this  interview  a  violation  of  SAKhAROV' s  se¬ 
curity  pledge,  despite  the  fact  that  the  interview  had  nothing  at  all  to 
do  with  SAKhAROV 's  field  of  physics: 

Because  of  the  nature  of  your  previous  work  you  had 
access  to  state  secrets  of  the  utmost  importance. 

You  made  a  signed  statement  to  the  effect  that  you 
would  not  divulge  strfte  secrets,  that  you  would  not 
meet  with  foreigners.  But  you  are  meeting  with  for¬ 
eigners  and  giving  them  information,  which  might  be 
of  interest  to  foreign  intelligence  agencies.  I  ask 
you  to  consider  the  seriousness  of  this  warning  and 
draw  the  conclusions  for  yourself. 1°9 

SAKhAROV  replied  to  this  charge,  and  the  implied  threat,  that  he  never 
had  and  never  would  divulge  military  or  military-technical  secrets  and 
that  he  had  not  dealt  with  secret  work  since  1968  anyway.  The  First  Dep¬ 
uty,  however,  indicated  that  this  made  so  difference  at  all. 

SAKhAROV  and  Solzhenitsyn,  who  was  also  under  attack  at  this  time,  were 
supported  in  a  protest  letter  on  9  September  1973,  signed  by  a  group  of 
ten  Jews,  eight  of  whom  were  scientists. HO  The  Jews,  all  of  vhom  had  ap¬ 
plied  to  emigrate  and  realized  that  this  protest  letter  might  risk  their 
chances  of  emigrating,  felt  that  silence  on  the  matter  only  made  them  par¬ 
ty  to  the  crime  and  believed  that  the  risk  was  worth  it.  They  viewed  the 
repression  of  SAKhAROV  and  Solzhenitsyn  as  a  harbinger  of  a  return  to  the 
"darkest  days  in  the  history  of  the  USSR."  TURChIR  had  also  written  a 
letter  of  support  for  SAKhAROV  in  September,  decrying  the  campaign  direct¬ 
ed  at  SAKhAROV' s  discreditation  and  calling  on  all  supporters  of  progress, 
democracy  and  peace  to  raise  their  voices  in  SAKhAROV' s  defense, 111  TUR- 
ChlN  viewed  the  campaign  against  SAKhAROV  as  harmful  to  the  international 
position  of  the  USSR  and  to  the  policy  of  coexistence,  because  it  provok¬ 
ed  distrust  as  to  the  intentions  of  the  USSR. 


-  *  ■»  'tonVS Kft rtfti 



In  a  letter  written  to  the  President  of  the  World  Federation  of  Sci¬ 
entists  by  seven  female  prisoners ,  one  of  whom  was  the  scientist  STEO- 
KATAYa,  in  September  or  October  1973,  the  campaign  against  SAKhAROV,  wa¬ 
ged  in  part  by  establishment  scientists,  was  cited  as  evidence  that 
under  the  conditions  of  Stalinist  tyranny  was  formed 
a  generation  of  scientists  who  were  capable  of  parti¬ 
cipating  in  scientific  progress,  but  who  were  unable 
to  understand  the  problems  of  social  progress. 

'  Conclusive  proof  of  this,  according  to  the  seven  prisoners,  was  the  fact 
that  one  of  the  scientists  persecuting  SAKhAROV,  Academician  and  genet¬ 
icist  Dubinin,  was  himself  a  victim  of  Stalinist  repression.  The  women 
called  on  Soviet  scientists  to  become  aware  of  this  "ghost  from  the 
past,"  repression,  which  was  being  carried  out  with  the  participation  of 
other  scientists,  and  stated  that  Soviet  scientists  should  realize  that 
participation  in  police  acts  was  incompatible  with  scientific  worn. 

The  worst  fears  of  SAKhAROV 's  supporters  were  nearly  realized  when,  on 
21  October  1973,  he  was  threatened  in  his  apartment  by  two  Arabs  who 
claimed  to  be  members  of  the  Palestinian  terrorist  group  "Black  Septem— . 
ber."i!3  Ten  days  prior  to  this  incident  SAKhAROV  had  given  an  interview 
in  which  he  refused  to  criticize  the  policies  of  Israel,  stating  that 
Israel  was  waging  a  war  for  its  survival  and  that  a  repetition  of  the 
WWJI  genocide  of  the  Jews  should  not  be  permitted  to  occur. 11^  The  Arab 
terrorists  demanded  an  explanation  of  this  comment  from  SAKhAROV,  telling 
him  that  they  never  warned  a  person  twice.  Solzhenitsyn  came  to  SAXhROV's 
defense  in  a  letter  on  28  October  in  which  he  expressed  his  conviction 
that  this  act  was  done  with  the  full  knowledge  and  encouragement  of  the 
Soviet  authorities ;115  moreover,  he  feared  that  this  was  a  new  method  to 
be  used  by  the  authorities  in  dealing  with  dissidents,  hiring  professional 
killers.  Solzenitsyn  vowed  to  devote  the  rest  of  his  life  to  destroying 
the  killers  if  such  an  event  were  to  take  place.  Four  other  dissidents, 
three  of  whom  were  scientists,  issued  a  statement  on  30  October  also  ex¬ 
pressing  the  opinion  that  this  attack  was  not  committed  without  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  Soviet  author  it  ies.H^ 

On  28  August  1973  TVERDOKhLEBOV's  apartment  was  searched  and  a  number 
of  documents  were  confiscated,  including  all  his  legal  literature,  his 
human  rights  Journals,  and  the  part  of  the  Human  Rights  Committee  archives 
he  maintained ;U7  ChALIDZE,  another  member  of  the  Committee,  had  had  his 
files  confiscated  in  1971  and  had  since  emigrated  to  the  US.  Viewed  to¬ 
gether  with  the  campaign  against  SAKhAROV,  then,  the  confiscation  of 
TVERDOKhLEBOV's  files  was  an  attempt  by  the  authorities  to  eliminate  the 
Human  Rights  Committee  as  a  viable  dissident  organization  by  removing  its 
information  sources.  The  campaign  against  SAKhAROV  was  an  attempt  to  si¬ 
lence  the  group's  spokesman  and  leader. 

One  of  the  few  occurrences  favorable  to  the  dissident  movement  in  the 
1972-73  time  frame  was  the  emergence  of  ORLOV  as  an  active  dissident.  In 
an  open  letter  to  Brezhnev  on  16  September  1973,  ORLOV  presented  a  well- 
conceived  essay  on  the  reasons  for  the  backwardness  of  the  USSR  in  its 
economy,  science  and  culture  and  on  possible  solutions  to  this  problem. 
ORLOV  cited  Marxist  ideological  interference  as  the  reason  the  USSR  was 
as  far  behind  in  science. 118  The  West  was  moving  ahead  in  areas  of  tech¬ 
nology  whicn  the  ideologists  in  the  USSR  had  dismissed  as  unacceptable. 


despite  the  fact  that  these  aev  areas  of  technology  furthered  science. 
ORLOV  proposed  the  "experimental  method"  as  the  way  changes  in  govern¬ 
ment  should  be  effected,  with  complete  openess  and  freedom  of  discussion. 
In  other  words,  an  end  to  ideological  interference.  He  found  fault  vita 
Marxism  as  a  descriptive  body  of  knowledge  in  that  it  ignored  the  contri¬ 
butions  of  morality  and  conscience  in  history,  which  ORLOV  described  as 
among  the  most  powerful  driving  forces  of  history.  In  response  to  the 
apparent  belief  of  the  Soviet  leaders  that  scientific  development  could 
continue  without  lifting  censorship  and  repression,  ORLOV  asserted  that 
a  scientist's  intellect  was  formed  by  both  scientific  tradition  and  his 
cultural  environment,  and  that  limiting  artistic  imagination  limited 
scientific  imagination. 119  ORLOV,  then,  in  the  scope  of  his  ideas  and 
the  breadth  of  his  knowledge,  almost  immediately  assumed  a  position  in 
the  dissident  movement  which  was  on  the  level  of  SAKhAROV,  TURChIN,  and 

Between  September  and  October  1973  a  new  human  rights  group,  initially 
called  "Group  73,”  later  the  "Soviet  Section  of  Amnesty  International," 
was  formed  by  eleven  people,  seven  of  whom  were  scientists,  including 
TVERDQKhLEBOV,  TURChlH,  ORLOV,  and  KOVALEV . 120  Two  of  the  scientists, 
TVERDOKhLESOV  and  KOVALEV,  had  been  members  of  earlier  dissident  groups. 
The  authorities  relatively  quickly  moved  in  to  eliminate  this  new  group, 
and  the  arrests  and  harrassment  of  its  members  are  documented  in  the  next 

4.  1974-78 :  Attempts  by  the  authorities  to  eradicate  dissident  groups. 

In  the  period  1974-78  the  Soviet  authorities  began  a  systematic  series 
of  arrests  to  deplete  the  dissident  organizations  of  their  leading  activ¬ 
ists  and  spokesmen,  designed  ultimately  to  eliminate  the  groups  altogether. 
Because  of  the  large  number  of  scientists  involved  in  dissident  groups, 
this  policy  move  affected  dissident  scientists  in  the  most  direct  way, 
resulting  in  the  arrests  of  six  of  the  most  active  of  them.  Scientists 
did  not,  however,  lessen  their  support  of  other  dissidents  during  this 
period,  and  signed  numerous  protest  letters  in  the  latter's  defense. 

On  27  February  1971*  the  threat  that  V,  Bukovskiy  might  be  transferred 
to  Vladiaar  Prison  prompted  the  writing  of  a  protest  letter  to  the  League 
of  the  Rights  of  Man  by  eight  individuals,  five  of  whom  were  scientists. 121 
The  protesters  called  on  the  Vest  to  support  Bukovskiy,  citing  Western 
support  as  having  earlier  saved  Bukovskiy  from  a  psychiatric  hospital  and 
more  recently  having  saved  A.  Amal'rik.  Bukovskiy  was  arrested  on  29 
March  1971  for  anti-Soviet  slander  and  had  been,  up  to  that  time,  a  spokes¬ 
man  against  the  psychiatric  repression  of  dissidents.  He  was  sentenced 
to  seven  years  confinement  and  five  years  exile. 

The  refusal  of  imprisoned  literary  critic  G.  Superfin  to  testify  at 
dissident  V,  Khaustov's  trial  on  5  March  197^  garnered  the  support  of 
forty-four  people,  eleven  of  whom  were  scientists,  who  demanded  Superfin's 
release  and  the  intercession  of  a  commission  from  the  International 


Association  of  Jurists  into  his  case. I22  The  protesters  also  decried  the 
fact  that  Superfin  had  not  been  tried  himself  and  that  his  testimony, 
vhicn  he  later  renounced,  was  obtained  illegally  by  the  KGB  investigators. 

In  early  197  U  KOVALEV,  T.  VELIKANOVA,  and  T.  Khodorovich  announced  pub¬ 
licly  that  they  had  assumed  responsibility  for  the  resurrection  and  con¬ 
tinued  publication  of  the  supressed  journal,  Chronicle  of  Current  E- 
vents.123  the  previous  issue  of  which  had  been  distributed  in  October  1972. 
This  was  a  significant  but  dangerous  move  on  their  part,  as  it  opened 
them  up  to  charges  of  disseminating  anti-Soviet  propaganda,  a  criminal 
offense.  No  one  had  publicly  admitted  compiling  or  publishing  the  Chron¬ 
icle  in  the  1966-72  time  period.  The  Chronicle  resumed  publication  in 
the  spring  of  197^,  when  four  issues  covering  the  period  from  October  1972 
to  May  197^  were  distributed,  and  publication  has  continued  up  to  the 
present  time  (1979)«  despite  the  subsequent  arrest  of  KOVALEV  and  the  emi¬ 
gration  of  Khodorovich. 

SAKhAROV,  in  an  open  letter  to  fellow  academician  ETTGEL' GARDT  on  29 
May  197U,  denounced  him  for  telling  US  and  European  scientists  and  pub¬ 
lic  officials  that  open  support  of  SAKhAROV  in  the  Vest  was  not  helpful 
to  SAKhAROV  or  hii  family. 12U  ENGEL 'GARDT  had  also  told  Westerners  that 
the  August  1973  letter,  in  which  forty  academicians  had  condemned  SAKh¬ 
AROV  (one  of  whom  had  been  ENGEL ' GARDT ) ,  had  saved  SAKhAROV  from  more 
serious  consequences.  ENGEL' GARDT' s  conversations  had  purportedly  been 
rife  with  protestations  of  goodvill  towards  SAKhAROV  and  his  position, 
with  only  a  hint  of  condescension  concerning  SAKhAROV 's  naivete,  careless¬ 
ness  and  inexperience.  In  response  SAKhAROV  stated  that  he  had  conscious¬ 
ly  chosen  his  own  life  style,  which  admittedly  might  be  far  from  pragmatic, 
and  that  he  didn't  need  ENGEL 'GARDT  to  correct  it.  SAKhAROV  further  main¬ 
tained  that  open  support  of  him  in  the  West  was  the  best  way  to  help  him. 
Whether  ENGEL' GARDT  was  nothing  more  than  the  government's  errand  boy, 
sent  abroad  to  pose  as  a  liberal  scientist  while  undermining  SAKhAROV,  is 
hard  to  determine.  ENGEL 'GARDT,  it  should  be  recalled,  did  take  part  in 
a  protest  in  1966.  It  is  likely  that,  as  a  Jew  and  as  a  relatively  lib¬ 
eral  thinker,  ENGEL 'GARDT  was  forced  to  make  certain  concessions  to  keep 
his  post  as  director  of  the  Institute  of  Molecular  Biology  and  to  be  al¬ 
lowed  to  travel  abroad.  It  may  well  be  that  ENGEL' GARDT 's  ideas  were 
close  to  SAKhAROV' s,  the  difference  being,  of  course,  that  SAKhAROV  chose 
to  elucidate  his  ideas  publicly. 

On  2d  November  197 ^  V.  Osipov,  the  editor  of  the  "samizdat"  Journal 
Veche «  was  arrested,  in  protest  of  which  a  statement  was  released  by  six¬ 
teen  individuals,  seven  of  whom  were  scientists. 125  Veche,  the  first 
periodical  devoted  to  the  Russian  nationalist  movement,  was  published 
openly  but  unofficially  from  January  1971  until  Osipov's  arrest.  Osipov 
had  refused  to  confront  the  authorities  politically  in  his  journal,  hoping 
that  the  regime  would  not  oppose  his  patriotic  activities.  Since  he  gave 
less  importance  to  the  problem  of  human  rights  than  to  the  problem  of  the 
decay  of  the  Russian  nation,  he  assumed  that  he  was  less  of  a  threat  than 
vere  most  Soviet  dissidents.  Osipov's  wife  was  mathematics  teacher  MASh- 
KOVA,  who  was  a  poet  who  had  contributed  to  Veche. l2^  She  was  also  a 
former  political  prisoner,  arrested  for  the  first  time  in  1958  for  cre¬ 
ating  an  anti-Soviet  organization  and  for  the  second  time  in  19&6  for 
attempting  to  illegally  cross  the  border  with  her  former  husband.  MAShKOVA 

wrote  an  open  letter  in  support  of  Osipov  on  28  December  1974,  in  which 
she  revealed  that  she  had  been  persecuted  by  the  police  since  her  hus¬ 
band's  arrest,  a  situation  that  was  aggravated  by  the  fact  that  she  was 
seven  months  pregnant  and  vas  in  dire  financial  straits. 127  She  asked 
for  financial  assistance  and  support  of  the  activists  in  the  Christian 
and  humanist  movements  in  Osipov's  defense. 

KOVALEV  was  arrested  on  27  December  1974,  four  days  after  his  apart¬ 
ment  ms  searched  and  a  large  amount  of  "samizdat"  confiscated. 128  KO¬ 
VALEV  vas  the  first  of  the  dissident  scientist  leaders  to  be  arrested  in 
the  1974-78  period.  The  formal  reason  for  his  arrest  vas  his  alleged 
relationship  to  the  "samizdat"  Chronicle  of  the  Lithuanian  Catholic 
Church,  which  he  purportedly  used  in  compiling  the  Chronicle  of  Current 
Events.  KOVALEV  had  been  a  "free-thinker"  since  19 5&,  when,  as  a  stu- 
dent  at  Moscow  State  University,  he  vas  one  of  the  authors  of  a  letter 
to  the  dean  of  the  Biology  Department  demanding  the  restoration  of  ge¬ 
netic  (destroyed  by  Lysenkoism)  as  a  scientific  discipline,  for  vhich  he 
was  summoned  to  the  KGB. 129  la  February  1968  KOVALEV  signed  one  of  the 
protest  letters  in  support  of  Ginzburg,  and  in  1969  he  becsme  a  founding 
member  of  the  Initiative  Group,  for  vhich  he  vas  fired  from  his  position 
at  Moscow  State  University. 130  KOVALEV  later  became  a  member  of  the  So¬ 
viet  Section  of  Amnesty  International,  and  he  continued  his  vork  of  sup¬ 
porting  dissidents  and  disseminating  "samizdat"  up  to  his  arrest. 

A  number  of  scientists  wrote  protest  letters  in  support  of  KOVALEV  im¬ 
mediately  after  his  arrest.  Mathematician  GOL'FAHD  released  a  statement 
in  vhich  he  expressed  his  conviction  that  the  reason  KOVALEV  vas  accused 
of  collaboration  vith  the  Chrodicle  of  the  Lithuanian  Catholic  r^rch  vas 
to  enable  the  authorities  to  move  KOVALEV's  trial  out  of  Moscow  to  Vil'- 
nyus,  away  from  his  friends  and  foreign  Journalists. 131  GOL'FABD  vouched 
for  KOVALEV's  high  moral  convictions,  stating  that  KOVALEV  had  personally 
helped  a  number  of  political  prisoners  and  their  families,  as  veil  as  re¬ 
ligious  believers,  and  he  called  for  a  world-wide  defense  of  KOVALEV. 
SAKhABOV  wrote  a  letter  on  28  December  appealing  for  an  international 
campaign  for  KOVALEV's  release, 132  On  30  December  the  Initiative  Group 
and  fifty-two  supporters  released  a  statement  in  support  of  KOVALEV;  of 

people  sisoiag  the  document,  twenty-five  were  scientists.  133 
KOVALEV  was  tried  9-12  December  1975  and  received  a  sentence  of  seven  years 
confinement  and  three  years  exile.134  KOVALEV’s  later  persecution  in  pri¬ 
son,  in  1976,  was  met  by  a  protest  from  twenty-two  people,  eighteen  of 
whom  were  scientists,  who  called  on  all  biologists  of  the  world  to  with¬ 
hold  scientific  contacts  vith  the  USSR  until  KOVALEV's  release.135 

On  18  April  1975  TVERDOKhLEBOV  vas  arrested,  after  having  been  sub¬ 
jected  to  tvo  searches  and  four  interrogations  from  27  November  to  25 
December  1974.136  on  the  seme  day  of  TVERDOKhLEBOV’s  arrest  the  apart¬ 
ments  of  two  other  Amnesty  International  members,  TURChIR,  the 
of  the  Soviet  Section,  and  AL'BREKhT,  were  searched  and  documents  con¬ 
nected  vith  the  activities  of  the  group  confiscated. 137  Protesting 
TVERDOKhLEBOV 's  arrest  in  several  letters  were  twenty  individuals,  ten  of 
whom  were  scientists. 138  Additionally,  TVERDOKhLEBOV,  a  Russian  Ortho¬ 
dox,  was  denied  the  right  to  confess  to  a  priest  while  in  prison  await¬ 
ing  his  trial.  This  was  protested  by  fellow  Christian  AL'BREKhT  in  a 
letter  to  Moscov  Patriarch  Pimen  on  10  November  1975,139  ChALIDZE 


considered  TVERDOKhLEBQV  the  last  representative  of  the  "analytical 
school"  in  the  huaan  rights  moveaent  still  living  in  the  USSR  (after 
the  emigration  of  TsUXERMAN ,  VOL' PIN  and  himself) ,  and  he  sav  TVERDOKh- 
LEBOV's  arrest  as  confirmation  that  the  Soviet  authorities  regarded  TVEF.- 
DOKhLEBCV's  apolitical  studies  of  the  Soviet  judicial  system  as  being 
no  less  dangerous  than  loud  protests. 1^0  TVERDOKfaLEBOY  vas  sentenced  to 
five  years  exile  on  16  April  1976,  but,  since  his  year  in  prison  countea 
as  three  in  exile,  he  remained  in  exile  only  until  1978,  after  which  he 
apparently  resumed  his  functions  as  secretary  of  the  Soviet  Section  of 
Amnesty  International. 1^1 

In  June  1975  SAKhAROV  released  his  third  major  essay,  "Concerning  the 
Country  and  the  World,"  vhicn,  in  its  pessimistic  view  of  the  future  of 
the  USSR  and  world  peace,  reflected  SAKhAROV’ s  discouragement  after  the 
massive  persecutions  of  dissidents  by  Soviet  authorities  in  the  previous 
several  years. 1^2  SAKhAROV  expressed  distrust  of  the  Soviet  compliance 
with  arms  control  agreements  and  called  on  increased  Western  pressure  to 
keep  the  USSR  from  gaining  the  upper  hand  in  world  politics.  This  essay, 
together  with  the  Nobel  Conmittee's  awarding  SAKhAROV  the  Nobel  Peace 
Prize  on  9  October  1975,  evoked  another  wave  of  condemnation  of  SAKhAROV 
from  establishment  scientists. 1^3  On  25  October  seventy-two  members  of 
the  USSR  Academy  of  Sciences,  less  than  one  third  of  the  total.  Including 
ENGEL 'GARDT  and,  inexplicably,  KAPITsA,  released  a  statement  in  which  they 
protested  the  Nobel  Committee's  action.  Writer  L.  Kopelov,  a  former  pri¬ 
son  camp  comrade  of  Solzhenitsyn's,  condemned  the  academicians'  move,  as¬ 
serting  that  the  most  they  would  have  risxed  by  not  signing  the  statement 
would  have  been  the  temporary  displeasure  of  the  authorities  and  a  momen¬ 
tary  setback  in  their  careers. lW»  Kopelev  maintained  that  these  academi¬ 
cians  vould  suffer  on  account  of  their  decision  through  the  hatred  of 
their  contemporaries  and  followers,  not  to  mention  through  the  weight  of 
their  own  consciences:  "The  most  eloquent  necrologies  and  the  most  luxu¬ 
rious  gravestones  do  not  counterbalance  the  shameful  weight  of  signing." 

On  12  May  1976  a  group  called  the  "Public  Group  to  Assist  in  the  Ob¬ 
servance  of  the  Helsinki  Accords  in  the  USSR,"  also  known  as  the  Moscow 
Helsinki  Monitoring  Group,  was  established  by  twelve  people,  four  of  whom 
including  the  chairman,  were  scientists:  ORLOV  (chairman),  KORChAK,  LAN- 
DA,  and  ShchARANSKIY.1^5  The  group,  as  its  title  indicates,  watched  for 
violations  of  the  Helsinki  Accords  and  reported  them.  In  the  period  from 
November  1976  to  April  1977  another  four  Helsinki  monitoring  groups  were 
formed  and  were  located,  respectively,  in  the  Ukraine,  Lithuania,  Georgia, 
and  Armenia. 1^6  Five  of  the  twenty-two  founding  members  of  these  groups 
were  scientists:  STROKATAYa,  FINKEL ’ ShTEYN ,  G.  GOLDShTEYN,  I.  GOLDShTEYN , 
and  NAZAR YaN . 

At  some  point  prior  to  mid  July  1976,  twenty-four  Soviet  scholars,  all 
but  one  of  wnom  were  scientists,  signed  an  open  letter  to  the  President 
of  the  USSR  Academy  of  Sciences,  A.P,  Aleksandrov,  and  Chairman  of  tne 
State  Committee  on  Science  and  Technology,  V.A.  Kirillin,  in  which  they 
addressed  the  problem  of  the  violation  of  Soviet  scholars'  civil  and  pro¬ 
fessional  rights. 1^7  The  scholars,  while  admitting  that  the  persecution 
was  not  as  bad  as  it  had  been  under  Stalin,  cited  the  restrictions  on  pub- 
lisning  research  papers,  attending  professional  meetings,  and  traveling 
abroad  as  detrimental  to  the  development  of  contemporary  science.  They 


further  stated  that  scholars  had  a  responsibility  far  exceeding  their 
own  professional  and  personal  affairs,  that  of  defending  human  rights. 

In  a  sense,  these  scientists  were  attempting  to  Justify  tne  leading 
role  of  the  scientist  in  dissidence  by  claiming  that  a  scientist-schol¬ 
ar  was  obliged  to  advocate  human  rights  issues. 

Physicist  ZAKS,  who  was  TVERDOKhLEBOV's  step-sister  and  ShUSTER's  wife, 
attempted  to  engage  a  lawyer  in  Moscow  in  late  September  197b  to  defend 
Pavel  Ye.  Bashkirov,  who  had  been  persecuted  for  friendship  with  leading 
dissidents. Ib3  Bashkirov  had  been  deprived  of  the  right  to  chose  his  own 
counsel  for  his  forthcoming  trial.  This  illegal  interference  on  the  part 
of  the  authorities  with  Bashkirov's  right  to  counsel  was  protested  in  a 
letter  to  the  Minister  of  Justice  of  the  RSFSR  which  was  signed  by  eight 
individuals,  four  of  whoa  were  scientists. 1^9  Eventually,  ZAKS  was  able 
to  have  the  lawyer  earlier  selected  by  Bashkirov's  relatives  reinstated. 

On  25  November  197b  a  concert  to  be  held  at  the  club  of  the  Institute 
of  Atomic  Energy  in  Moscow  vas  cancelled  because  of  the  proposed  partici¬ 
pation  of,  among  others,  songwriter  and  physicist  MIRZAYaN.150  His  con¬ 
certs  at  the  Moscow  Physico-Technical  Institute  and  the  Architecture  In¬ 
stitute,  scheduled  for  November  and  December  197b,  were  also  cancelled. 
MIRZAYaN  had  been  questioned  in  May  by  Party  officials  concerning  his 
participation  in  the  so-called  "Vskresen'ye"  (Sunday)  concerts,  which 
were  unofficial  concerts  held  in  the  outlying  areas  of  Moscow  in  197b. 151 
He  was  accused  of  being  one  of  the  organizers. 

The  publication  of  the  humaxv  rights  document,  "Charter  77,"  by  257 
Czechoslovak  intellectuals  in  January  1977  was  hailed  and  firmly  sup¬ 
ported  by  sixty-two  Soviet  citizens,  twenty-five  of  whom  were  scientists, 
on  12  February  1977.152  "Charter  77,"  which  called  for  the  humanization 
of  society  through  the  implementation  of  constitutional  rights,  was 
written  originally  in  an  attempt  to  urge  official  compliance  with  the  hu¬ 
man  rights  provisions  of  the  Helsinki  Accords,  but  became  the  symbol  for 
liberalization  in  the  Soviet  bloc.  Perhaps  the  most  significant  aspect 
of  this  document  vas  that  it  came  not  from  the  West  but  from  a  socialist 
state;  hence,  it  was  more  troublesome  ideologically  for  Soviet  authorities 
to  combat.  The  thought  that  dissident  intellectuals  from  various  social¬ 
ist  countries  could  arrive  at  common  positions  and  provide  mutual  support 
vas  also,  no  doubt,  disconcerting  and  troublesome  for  the  Soviet  leaders. 

The  arrest  of  writer  and  founding  member  of  the  Helsinki  Monitoring 
Group,  A.  Ginzburg,  on  3  February  1977  was  met  by  a  protest  from  Soviet 
citizens  which  nearly  matched  the  protest  of  his  trial  in  19b8.  A  pro¬ 
test  letter,  signed  by  325  individuals,  sixty-eight  of  whom  were  scien¬ 
tists,  vas  released  the  day  after  Ginzburg's  arrest. 153  The  letter  call¬ 
ed  on  the  leaders  of  the  countries  adhering  to  the  Helsinki  Accords  to 
recognize  Ginzburg's  arrest  as  an  attack  on  a  member  of  the  Helsinki 
Monitoring  Group  and  to  realize  that  his  arrest  evidenced  the  existence 
of  a  political  and  social  climate  in  the  USSR  which  would  have  serious 
international  consequences.  Ginzburg  vas  sentenced  to  eight  years  con¬ 
finement  and  five  years  exile  in  July  1978.  He  was  released,  however, 
on  27  April  1979,  in  a  prisoner  exchange  between  the  US  and  USSR. 

On  10  February  1977  ORLOV  vas  arrested  after  several  searches  of  his 


apartment,  during  which  a  number  of  "samizdat"  documents  were  confiscat¬ 
ed.^  ORLOV's  arrest,  which  came  just  three  days  after  fellow  Helsinki 
Monitoring  Group  member  MEYuK’s  apartment  was  searched  and  seven  days  af¬ 
ter  Ginzburg's  arrest,  clearly  indicated  that  the  authorities  had  made 
the  decision  to  eliminate  the  group  altogether.  ORLOV  had  been  at  odas 
with  official  policy  in  the  USSR  since  1956,  when  he  and  a  group' of  col¬ 
leagues  presented  a  program  for  democratic  reforms  in  the  Party  and  the 
state. 15$  This  occurred  at  a  Party  meeting  at  the  Institute  of  Theoret¬ 
ical  and  Experimental  Physics  in  Moscow  and  resulted  in  his  expulsion 
from  both  the  Farty  and  the  Institute.  He  was  unable  to  find  work  in 
Moscow  after  that  and  finally  moved  to  Yerevan,  where  he  was  elected  a 
Corresponding  Member  of  the  Armenian  Academy  of  Sciences.  In  1972  ORLOV 
returned  to  Moscow  and  began  working  at  the  Institute  of  Terrestrial 
Magnetism  and  Propagation  of  Radio  Waves,  located  in  the  Krasnaya  Fakhra 
Science  City  Just  south  of  Moscow.  He  was  fired  from  that  institute  in 
1973  for  his  letter  to  Brezhnev  on  the  reasons  for  the  backwardness  of 
the  USSR  (see  above).  Less  than  three  weeks  after  his  letter  to  Brezhnev 
ORLOV  became  a  founding  member  of  the  Soviet  Section  of  Amnesty  Interna¬ 
tional.  He  was  unable,  however  to  find  any  regular  work  after  his  dis¬ 
missal  from  the  Institute. 

ORLOV's  arrest  was  followed  by  a  number  of  interrogations  and  other 
tactics  designed  to  frighten  off  his  prospective  supporters;  some  of  the 
scientists  interrogated  were  GOL'FAND,  LANDA,  LAVUT,  GASTEV,  KORChAK  and 
AL'BREKhT.15o  Physicist  BARABANOV  was  offered  a  chance  to  denounce  ORLOV's 
political  views  in  order  to  get  promoted;  he  refused. 157  Corresponding 
Member  of  the  USSR  Academy  of  Sciences  L.B.  Okun'  was  brought  before  the 
director  of  the  Institute  of  Th’eoretical  and  Experimental  Physics,  the 
secretary  of  the  Party  bureau  and  an  "unknown  person"  and  asked  if  he  was 
planning  to  speak  out  on  ORLOV's  behalf .158  He  replied  that  he  was  not. 
ORLOV's  trial  was  held  15-18  May  1978  and  he  received  the  maximum  sentence 
for  the  charge  of  anti-Soviet  propaganda  and  agitation:  Seven  years  con¬ 
finement  and  five  years  exile.  Protesting  his  sentence  were  fourteen  sci¬ 
entists.  159 

On  W  March  1977  mathematician  and  Helsinki  Monitoring  Group  founding 
member  ShchARANSKIY  and  cyberneticist  LERNER  were  accused  of  espionage 
and  collaboration  with  the  CIA  in  an  open  letter  to  the  Presidium  of  the 
USSR  Supreme  Soviet,  the  United  Nations,  and  the  US  Congress  by  ShchARAN- 
SKIY's  former  roomate  S.L.  Lipavskiy .160  ShchARANSKIY  was  arrested  15 
March  1977  after  a  search  of  his  apartment  five  days  earlier. l6l  A  num¬ 
ber  of  scientists  were  interrogated  after  ShchARAH SKIY ' s  arrest,  includ¬ 
and  FINDEL'ShTEYN.l62  ShchARANSKIY,  who  had  applied  for  emigration  in 
1973  but  was  turned  down  for  security  reasons,  had  been  active  in  both 
the  Jewish  emigration  and  the  human  rights  movement.  ShchARANSKIY,  in 
fact,  vas  a  leading  spoaesman  for  both  movements  because  of  his  command 
of  English  and  his  contacts  with  foreign  Journalists. 

In  June  1977  ShchARANSKIY ' s  previous  contacts  with  foreign  Journalists 
proved  a  major  problem  for  his  defense  in  court,  for  he  was  linked  to  al¬ 
leged  espionage  conducted  by  US  nevs  correspondent  Robert  Toth.  Toth  vas 
detained  by  the  KGB  or  lU  June  1977  for  allegedly  receiving  secret  infor¬ 
mation  on  parapsychology  from  biologist  PETUKhOV  on  11  June. 163  Toth 


claimed  that  he  had  heard  about  PETUKhOV  from  a  Soviet  scientist  then 
living  in  Israel  and  that  several  months  earlier  ShchARARSKIY  had  in¬ 
formed  Toth  that  PETUKhOV  wanted  to  meet  with  him.  When  PETUKhOV  final¬ 
ly  did  meet  with  Toth,  the  former  asked  for  Toth’s  assistance  in  getting 
his  research  published  in  the  US.  Immediately  after  PETUKhOV  handed 
Toth  the  materials  Toth  was  picked  up  and  interrogated.  On  1U  June  Toth 
was  questioned  for  four  hours ,  primarily  about  PETUKhOV  and  parapsychol¬ 
ogy.  On  the  next  day  though,  Toth  was  informed  that  he  was  now  testify¬ 
ing  as  a  witness,  and  the  questions  primarily  concerned  ShchARABSKIY , 
who,  at  Toth's  own  admission,  had  assisted  him  in  assembling  information 
on  Soviet  developments  in  science  on  several  occasions.  It  is  not  clear 
whether  PETUKhOV  was  working  for  the  KGB  when  he  offered  Toth  the  materi¬ 
als.  It  does  seem  clear,  however,  that  the  incident  was  not  initially 
an  attempt  by  the  authorities  to  incriminate  ShehARAHSKIY,  for  Toth  was 
questioned  on  ShehARAHSKIY  on  the  second,  not  the  first,  day  of  interro¬ 
gation.  It  seesis  more  likely  that  Toth  was  constantly  under  surveillance, 
that  it  was  for  this  reason  that  he  was  picked  up  so  quickly  after  being 
handed  the  "secret"  material,  and  that  the  authorities  learned  of  the 
Toth-PETUKhOV-ShchARAHSKIY  connection  in  the  course  of  their  investiga¬ 
tion  and  decided  then  to  exploit  it. 

Also  in  June  1977  twelve  former  students  and  teachers  at  ShehARAHSKIY' s 
alma  mater,  Moscow  Physlco-Technlcal  Institute,  released  an  appeal  to 
"Professors,  Teachers  and  Students  of  all  the  World's  Universities"  for 
support  of  ShehARAHSKIY . l6U  The  twelve  asserted  that  ShehARAHSKIY  did 
not  have  access  to  secret  material  while  at  the  institute  (which  was 
the  reason  given  for  refusing  visa  application  in  1973)  and  that  he 
bad  never  done  anything  which  could  be  construed  as  being  inimical  to  the 
interests  of  the  Soviet  government  or  Soviet  society.  Despite  this  and 
other  pleas  in  his  defense,  ShchABABSKIY  was  tried  10-lk  July  1978  and 
found  guilty  of  treason,  for  which  he  received  thirteen  years  confine¬ 
ment.  lo5 

In  June  1977  an  American  tourist  was  found  with  an  article  on  nuclear 
physics  in  his  possession,  written  by  chemist  KISLIK,  who  had  been  re¬ 
fused  emigration  on  security  grounds  in  1973.^6  in  September  1977  KIS¬ 
LIK  was  threatened  with  the  possibility  of  arrest,  KISLIK  was  also  an 
activist  for  the  Jewish  emigration  movement  and  one  of  the  organizers  of 
the  engineering  symposium  conducted  in  Kiev  throughout  1975 •  Ten  Jewish 
scientists  came  to  KISLIK' s  defense  in  late  1977  with  an  appeal  to  West¬ 
ern  scientific  societies  in  which  they  stated  their  conviction  that  the 
persecution  of  KISLIK  was  an  attempt  by  the  authorities  to  completely 
crush  all  forms  of  scientific  activity  by  Jewish  scientists  who  had  ap¬ 
plied  for  emigration,  including  publication,  scientific  contacts,  and 
seminars. 187  It  might  be  that  the  special  nighttime  guard  duty  initiated 
at  the  Ukrainian  Academy  of  Sciences'  Institutes  in  Kiev  in  October  1977I08 
had  some  relationship  to  KISLIK ' s  case,  possibly  to  prevent  the  unauthor¬ 
ized  use  of  copying  machines  or  other  activities  in  his  support. 

Further  attempts  of  the  authorities  to  curtail  the  activities  of  tne 
Helsinki  monitoring  groups  led  to  the  arrest  of  a  member  of  the  Georz^aa 
group,  physicist  G.  GOL'DShTEYH,  on  17  January  1978  for  "parasitism"i°9 
and  the  arrest  of  a  member  of  the  Armenian  group,  physicist  NAZARYaN,  on 
22  December  1977  for  anti-Soviet  agitation  and  propaganda. 17°  NAZARYaN 

was  arrested  after  a  sixteen-hour  search  of  his  apartment  turned  up  num¬ 
erous  "samizdat"  materials.  GOL ' DSnTEYN  was  arrested  for  refusing  to 
accept  Jobs  offered  him  by  state  agencies,  preferring  to  live  instead  on 
money  he  earned  tutoring.  GOL'DShTEYN  had  been  refused  an  emigration 
visa  in  1971  on  the  grounds  of  access  to  secret  information  and  had  later 
renounced  his  Soviet  citizenship.  He  held  no  permanent  Jobs  after  that 
time.  He  defended  his  refusal  to  work  as  being  motivated  by  the  desire 
to  stay  clear  of  all  researco  which  could  be  construed  as  "classified," 
which  would  extend  the  period  of  time  he  would  have  to  wait  before  emi¬ 
grating.  GOL'DShTEYN  was  tried  20  March  1978  and  was  sentenced  to  one 
year  confinement,  the  maximum  sentence  for  "parasitism."  NAZARYaH,  who 
had  not  been  brought  to  trial  by  late  1973,  had  enrolled  in  a  seminary 
immediately  after  graduating  from  Yerevan  University  and  eventually  re¬ 
ceived  the  position  of  deacon. 172  He  served  in  the  church  for  a  short 
period  of  time  and  left  to  resume  his  work  as  a  physicist,  reportedly 
after  a  conflict  with  the  church  hierarchy.  NAZARYaN  became  one  of  the 
tnree  founding  members  of  the  Armenian  Helsinki  Monitoring  Group  in  April 

The  final  historical  event  to  be  discussed  in  this  chapter  involves, 
fittingly  but  purely  by  chance,  SAKhAROV,  beyond  question  the  most  impor¬ 
tant  Soviet  dissident  scientist  and  probably  the  most  important  Soviet 
dissident.  On  19  July  1978  SAKhAROV  was  suamoned  to  the  head  scientific 
secretary  of  the  Presidium  of  the  USSR  Academy  of  Sciences  and  was  infor¬ 
med  that  his  (SAKhAROV' s)  actions  during  ORLOV's  trial  (in  May  1978)  were 
considered  impends sable  and  undermined  the  prestige  of  Soviet  scientists. 173 
The  secretary  indicated  that  he  was  carrying  out  the  instructions  of  a  re¬ 
solution  passed  by  the  Presidium  on  the  basis  of  USSR  Academy  of  Sciences 
President  Aleksandrov's  report  ’on  SAKhAROV.  SAKhAROV  had  struck  a  person 
apparently  acting  in  an  official  capacity  outside  of  ORLOV's  court  room 
who  had  hit  his  wife.  At  the  time,  SAKhAROV  and  his  wife  were  trying  to 
attend  ORLOV's  trial.  SAKhAROV  defended  his  actions,  in  this  particular 
instance  and  in  the  human  rights  movement  in  general,  before  the  secre¬ 
tary,  daring  the  secretary  to  expell  him  from  the  Academy.  SAKhAROV  em¬ 
phasized  that  as  long  as  he  vas  a  member  of  the  Academy,  he  expected  to 
be  treated  as  one.  There  was  not  much  else  the  secretary  could  do  or 
say:  SAKhAROV  had  emerged  unscathed  again. 



Vvn&t  are  some  o?  the  conclusions  what  can  be  reached  from  tne  nistori- 
cai  development  of  dissider.ce  in  the  scientific  community,  as  presented 
in  this  cnapter?  First  of  all,  there  has  been  a  gradual  but  steady  po¬ 
grom  of  dissident  scientists  nolaing  leadership  positions,  particularly 
since  1971*.  Coincident  with  the  arrests  of  tue  leaders,  other  less  *.novn 
but  nevertheless  active  dissident  scientists  have  been  subjected  to  inter¬ 
rogations  and  apartment  searches  and  threatened  vith  arrest  if  they  con¬ 
tinued  their  activities.  As  a  result  of  this  repression,  by  i973  tuere 
vere  very  few  dissident  scientists  of  international  stature  and  repute 
left  in  tne  dissident  movement,  and  the  activities  of  many  of  the  dissi¬ 
dent  groups  suffered  for  lack  of  leadersnip. 

Another  conclusion  that  could  be  reached  is  that  the  mass  persecution  of 
the  scientists  vho  signed  tne  i960  protest  letters  was  a  successful  move 
on  the  part  of  the  government.  The  persecutions  probably  kept  a  number  of 
scientists  away  from  the  dissident  movement  completely  vho  might  have  been 
in  agreement  vith  post-19b6  dissident  activities  and  issues,  and  very  few 
of  the  scientists  vho  signed  the  19o3  protest  letters  appeared  again  in 
dissident  activities.  It  cannot  be  said,  hovever,  that  tneir  dissatisfac¬ 
tion  vith  the  Soviet  system  vas  eliminated  after  the  repression.  It  is 
more  likely  that  their  tactics  simply  cnanged  from  external  to  internal 
dissent.  It  is  not  unlikely,  in  fact,  that,  given  an  issue  of  extreme  im¬ 
portance  or  a  politically-relaxed  atmosphere,  these  "internal  dissidents" 
might  re-emerge. 

The  conclusions  must  be,  then,  a  relatively  sober  one:  there  vere  few 
scientists  left  in  a  dissident  movement  which  vas  itself  apparently  declin¬ 
ing  for  lack  of  leadership  and  excess  of  repression.  There  was,  hovever, 
one  major  source  of  continuity,  the  organized  dissident  groups,  which  had 
been  created  during  the  period  1969-76,  in  many  cases  by  dissident  scien¬ 
tists.  These  groups,  although  deprived  of  membership  tnrougn  arrests,  emi¬ 
gration  and  persecution,  at  least  theoretically  were  capable  of  continuing 
the  work  begun  in  the  late  lybG's  and  early  1970's  in  the  areas  of,  inter 
alia,  human  rights,  religious  freedom,  and  the  right  to  emigrate.  All  that 
vas  needed  vas  leadership.  A  number  of  tnese  dissident  groups  will  be  ais- 
cussed  in  the  following  chapter,  for  it  is  these  groups  which  will  probably 
remain  as  rallying  points  for  dissidents  in  tne  USSR  in  the  future. 



Penfield,  in  his  1973  work,  presents  a  good  overview  of  all  the 
dissident  groups  then  extant  in  the  Soviet  dissident  movement.  The 
reader  is  referred  to  that  work  for  a  more  comprehensive  look  at  dissi¬ 
dent  groups.  In  this  chapter,  only  those  groups  in  which  scientists 
held  leadership  positions  or  were  active  members  will  be  discussed;  al¬ 
though  admittedly,  few  groups  were  without  scientists.  The -e  are  five 
categories  of  groups  that  will  be  described  and  analyzed  in  this  chap¬ 
ter,  three  of  which  are  concerned  with  formal  groups,  two  of  which  are 
concerned  with  informal  groupings.  Because  the  1977  Soviet  Constitution 
requires  that  all  organizations  in  the  USSR  be  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Communist  Party  (Article  126),  it  is  clear  that  dissidents  belonging  to 
the  formal  groups  were  in  violation  of  the  law,  at  least  after  1977.  The 
formal  groups  to  be  analyzed  in  this  chapter  are  of  the  democratic/  hu¬ 
man  rights  type,  the  ethnic /religious  type,  and  the  revolutionary /crimi¬ 
nal  type.  The  informal  groupings  to  be  examined  are  the  scientific /pro¬ 
fessional  and  the  social  elite. 


1.  Democratic /Hua an  Rights  Groups 

The  democratic /human  rights  groups  hare  been  in  existence  since  1969, 
a  year  which,  in  retrospect,  was  a  turning  point  in  Soviet  aissidence,  a 
shift  away  from  loosely-organized  collective  protest  letters  to  organized 
groups.  It  could  be  suggested  that  the  reason  for  this  shift  was  to  en¬ 
sure  the  safety  of  those  relatively  few  dissidents  who  continued  to  dis¬ 
sent  after  1968:  by  achieving  Western  notoriety  and  public  support  the 
groups  might  have  attained  semi-official  recognition  which  allowed  them 
to  exist,  albeit  for  short  periods  of  time. 

There  have  been  seven  human  rights  groups  in  the  USSR,  all  of  whom 
have  had  scientists  as  active  members.  It  is  important  to  note  that  ell 
of  these  groups  were  considered  "legal”  by  their  members.  Hone  demanded 
an  end  to  Communist  Party  rule  or  a  transformation  of  the  USSR  into  a 
bourgeois  democracy;  rather,  the  groups  demanded  the  unbiased  observance 
of  Soviet  law.  In  keeping  with  their  "legal"  status,  the  methods  of  the 
groups  were  not  overtly  subversive  or  illegal:  legal  demonstrations, 
letters  to  Soviet  and  foreign  officials  and  organizations,  news  confer¬ 
ences,  and  publication  and  distribution  of  "Samizdat,"  which  they  refused 
to  admit  was  illegal.  The  immediate  goal  of  these  groups  was  to  gain 
publicity,  both  in  the  USSR  and  in  the  West,  of  Soviet  infractions  of 
Soviet  laws,  and  it  was  assumed  that  public  opinion  would  force  the  USSR 
to  fulfill  its  legal  obligations.  All  of  these  groups  were  Western  ori¬ 
ented:  they  all  needed  the  moral  and  political  support  of  the  West  to 
survive  and  exert  pressure  on  ttie  Soviet  authorities. 

A.  The  Initiative  Group  for  Defense  of  Human  Rights  in  the  USSR 

The  first  of  the  human  rights  groups  in  the  USSR,  the  Initiative  Group 
for  Defense  of  Human  Rights  in  the  USSR  (Initiative  Group),  was  founded 
in  May  1969  with  fifteen  members,  five  of  whom  were  scientists:  T.  VELI¬ 
KANOVA,  KOVALEV,  LAVUT,  PLYuShcn,  and  ?CDr,Ya?OL'SKIY.l  The  group's  pri¬ 
mary  role  has  been  the  collection  and  dissemination  of  data  on  violations 
of  human  rights  in  the  USSR;  these  violations  have  been  reported  both  to 
international  and  to  Soviet  authorities.  The  Initiative  Group  has  made 
no  overtly  political  statements  and  has  no  program,  rules,  or  organiza¬ 
tional  structure.  There  were  no  formal  ties,  in  fact,  linking  tne  mem¬ 
bers,  who  were  both  Communist  and  non-Communist,  religious  and  non-rali- 
giou3,  but  they  did  share  the  conviction  that  the  rights  of  the  individ¬ 
ual  had  to  be  preserved  in  any  society.  They  were  also  committed  to 
working  in  the  open  in  a  clearly  legal  manner. 

The  impetus  for  forming  this  group  was  the  arrest  of  dissidents  Grig- 
orenko  and  Gabay  in  1969.^  For  the  first  six  months  of  its  existence, 
the  Initiative  Group  directed  all  its  letters  to  the  United  Nations,  see¬ 
ing  it  as  tne  most  representative  body  called  upon  to  defend  universal 
interests:  "Human  rights  in  any  country  -  is  a  matter  the  sane  for  all 


people,  regardless  of  nationality  and  state  boundaries. "3  The  group  be¬ 
lieved  that  the  Soviet  leadership  listened  to  Western  public  opinion, 
and.  for  this  reason  sent  their  letters  abroad.  When,  however,  the  UN 
failed  to  respond,  the  Initiative  Group  turned  to  other  international 
organizations  and  to  Soviet  authorities.  The  group  only  considered  hu¬ 
man  rights  violations  in  the  USSR,  despite  calls  for  them  to  widen 
their  scope.  The  group  responded  to  such  calls  by  stating  that  the  USSR, 
by  its  international  posture,  prompted  violations  of  human  rights  in  oth¬ 
er  countries,  and  that,  if  the  USSR's  violations  were  to  be  curtailed, 
the  other  countries  would  change  for  the  better. 

Of  the  fifteen  members,  six  were  arrested  within  one  year.  One  docu¬ 
ment  signed  in  1970  listed  only  eight  members,  among  whom  were  all  five 
scientists.1*  By  1975  only  three  members  were  left  to  sign  the  group's 
lette^,  including  scientists  P0D"YaP0L'SKIY  and  T.  VELIKANOVA. 5  In 
1976  only  T.  VELIKANOVA  and  Kbodorovich  remained, 6  and  in  1977  Khodoro- 
vich  emigrated,  leaving  T.  VELIKANOVA  the  sole  representative  of  the 
grout).  Other  scientists  who  have  supported  the  Initiative  Group  at  one 
time* or  another  are  LAND A,  TIMAChEV,  VOL 'PIN,  GAYDUKOV,  DZhEMILEV,  KAP¬ 

B.  The  Human  Rights  Committee 

The  Human  Rights  Committee  was  formed  k  November  1970  by  three  physi¬ 
cists,  SAKHAROV,  ChALIDZE,  and  TVERDOKhLEBOV . 7  The  principles  of  the 
Committee  firmly  stated  that  the  group  would  not  be  political  and  that 
the  members  would  not  strive  for  any  political  positions.  Its  goals  were 
to  create  favorable  living  conditions,  to  strengthen  peace,  and  to  devel¬ 
op  mutual  understanding,  all  through  the  medium  of  the  guarantee  of  hu¬ 
man  rights.  Some  of  the  functions  of  this  group  were:  consultations 
with  governmental  authorities  on  human  rights,  research  assistance  on  tne 
theoretical  aspects  of  human  rights  in  a  socialist  society,  legal  assist¬ 
ance,  and  the  dissemination  of  human  rights  information  found  in  Inter¬ 
national  and  Soviet  law.  The  Committee  expressed  its  readiness  to  estab¬ 
lish  contacts  with  social  and  academic  organizations  as  long  as  or_ 
ganizations  were  not  guided  by  the  desire  to  harm  the  USSR.”  The  Human 
Rights  Committee  rarely  signed  protest  letters  or  took  part  in  other  dis¬ 
sident  activities,  but  proceedings  of  its  meetings  were  published  in 
"Samizdat,"  much  of  it  in  ChALIDZE 's  journal  Obshchestvennyye  problemy 
(Public  Problems). 9 

In  June  1971  the  Committee  became  affiliated  with  the  International 
League  for  the  Rights  of  Man  (New  York), 10  and  in  August  1971  with  the 
International  Institute  on  Human  Rignts  (Strasbourg) ,11  The  Committee 
elected  two  other  scientists,  mathematician  VOL'PIN  and  physicist  TsJiC- 
ERMAN,  as  "experts"  of  the  group.12  ChALIDZE  left  the  group  in  1972 
ucon  his  emigration  and  was  replaced  by  mathematician  ShAFAREVICh.13 
After  TVERDOKhLEBOV  resigned  in  1972,  geophysicist  P0D"YaP0L'SKIY  be¬ 
came  a  member. I1*  The  emigration  of  ChALIDZE,  VOL'PIN,  and  TsUiCnRHAN, 


the  arrest  of  TVZRDOKhLZBOV ,  and  the  death  of  ?OD"Ya?QL'SKIY  left  only 
SAKhAr.CV  and  ShAFAPEVTCh  in  the  group  after  1976,  and  the  Committee  as 
suon  has  done  little  since  that  time. 

C.  Group-7 3/Soviet  Section  of  Amnesty  International 

Group-73  vas  founded  1  September  1973  as  a  benevolent  society  to  help 
political _prisoners  and  their  families,  taking  Amnesty  International  as 
a  model. The  founding  members  of  the  group  were  TVERLOKhLEBOV ,  math¬ 
ematician  AL'BRZKhT,  V.  Arkhangel ' skiy  and  Korneyev.  The  group  resolved 
to  assist  political  prisoners  regardless  of  political  orientation,  race, 
nationality,  class,  or  religion,  and  to  provide  consultation.  TVERDOKh- 
LEBOV  apparently  vas  the  guiding  light  behind  this  group,  as  he  had  pub¬ 
lished  since  early  1973  a  "Samizdat"  journal,  Amnesty  International,  and 
had  incorporated  its  ideas  into  tne  group. 

On  b  October  1973  this  group,  expanded  to  eleven  members,  applied  for 
membership  in  Amnesty  International  and  became  known  as  the  Soviet  Section 
of  Amnesty  International. ^  The  executive  group  of  the  section  vas  com¬ 
posed  of  physicists  TURChIN  (Chairman),  TVERDOKhLEBOV  (Secretary),  3EL00- 
ZLROV  and  mathematician  AL'BREhhT.  Of  the  remaining  seven  members,  three 
were  scientists:  ORLOV,  ORLOVSKIY  and  KOVALEV.  The  executive  group  vas 
to  meet  no  less  than  once  every*  two  months,  and  a  general  meeting  of  the 
section  vas  to  meet  no  less  than  once  a  year.  KOVALEV  ana  TVERDOKhLEBOV 
were  arrested,  according  to  SAKhARO V,  because  the  authorities  wanted  to 
demonstrate  their  opposition  to  the  existence  of  such  an  organization, 
particularly  because  of  its  international  ties  and  tight  structure. 

When  TURChlil  emigrated  in  1977,  the  position  of  chairman  vas  assumed  by 

The  Soviet  Section  committed  itself  to  fight  for  tne  release  of  pris¬ 
oners  vnose  rights  had  been  violated,  despite  their  political  beliefs, 
and  took  upon  itself  the  protection  of  three  prisoners,  one  from  the 
East  European  countries,  one  from  the  West,  and  one  from  the  Third  Worla. 
The  group  was  not  allowed  to  monitor  prisoners  from  the  USSR  in  the  in¬ 
terests  of  political  objectivity.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  soae 
Western  sections  of  Amnesty  International  protested  the  fact  that  Soviet 
dissidents  headed  the  Soviet  Section,  claiming  that  they  were  not  objec¬ 
tive  and  impartial  because  of  their  situation. 20  it  is  not  known  vnom 
the  Western  sections  preferred. 

D.  Public  Group  to  Assist  in  tne  Observance  of  tne  Helsinki  Accor  Is 
in  che  USSR 

This  -roup,  also  known  as  tne  Helsinki  monitoring  Group,  vas  formed  in 
Moscow  on  ±2  May  1976  by  eleven  individuals,  four  of  vnom  vers  scientists: 


ORLOV  (Chairman),  KORChAK,  LAHDA,  and  ShchARANSKIY . 21  Of  the  seven 
members  added  later  to  the  group,  three  were  scientists:  MNYuK,  KEY- 
KAH,  and  P0LIKAK0V.22  The  group  was  founded  at  the  initiative  of  OR¬ 
LOV  to  monitor  the  observance  of  the  humanitarian  articles  (Basket  5) 
of  the  Final  Act  of  the  Conference  on  Security  and  Cooperation  in  Europe 
(CSCE),  signed  22  July  1975.23  On  15  May  1976,  ORLOV  vas  picked  up  and. 
taken  to  the  KGB,  where  he  vas  varned  that  his  activity  vas  in  violation 
of  the  Constitution  and  hindered  the  process  of  detente.  With  ORLOV's 
and  ShchARANSKIY * s  arrests  in  1977  and  MKYuK's  and  POLIKANOV ' s  emigra¬ 
tion,  the  only  scientists  left  in  the  group  after  1977  were  MEYMAN,  LAM- 
DA,  and  KORChAK. 

The  main  task  of  the  Helsinki  Monitoring  Group  vas  to  supply  informa¬ 
tion  on  violations  of  the  articles  to  the  heads  of  the  governments  which 
signed  the  Final  Act  and  to  the  people  of  those  countries. 2h  The  group 
proceeded  from  the  conviction  that  human  rights  had  a  direct  relationship 
to  the  problem  of  international  security,  and  the  group  called  upon  peo¬ 
ple  from  the  other  co-signing  nations  to  set  up  similar  national  monitor¬ 
ing  groups.  To  gather  this  information  the  group  offered  to  accept  di¬ 
rectly  from  Soviet  citizens  complaints  on  violations.  In  cases  of  ex-* 
tremely  inhumane  acts,  such  as  removing  children  from  religious  parents, 
forced  psychiatric  treatment  and  separation  of  families,  the  group  pro¬ 
posed  to  turn  to  the  heads  of  the  governments  as  veil  as  the  people  vith 
a  request  that  an  international  commission  be  established  to  check  out 
the  information  at  its  source*  The  group  hoped  that  its  information 
vould  be  considered  at  all  offical  meetings  vhich  were  scheduled  in  the 
Final  Act. 25 

In  Autumn  1976,  the  Moscov-based  Helsinki  Monitoring  Group  called  for 
the  national  republics  to  form  their  own  monitoring  groups. 26  A  Ukrain¬ 
ian  group  vas  established  on  9  November  1976,27  and  vas  followed  by  the 
establishement  of  Lithuanian, 28  Georgian29  and  Armenian30  groups  on  25 
November  1976,  January  1977,  and  1  April  1977,  respectively.  The  par¬ 
ticipation  of  scientists  in  each  of  these  groups  vas  significant.  One 
of  the  nine  founding  members  of  the  Ukrainian  group,  STROKATAYa,  one  of 
the  five  founding  members  of  the  Lithuanian  group,  FUfKELShTEYN,  two  of 
the  three  founding  members  of  the  Georgian  group,  G  GOLDShTEYN  and  I. 
GOLDShTEYN,  and  one  of  the  three  founding  members  of  the  Armenian  group, 
NAZARYaN,  were  scientists.  The  goal  of  these  groups  vas  to  document 
specific  violations  of  human  rights  in  their  respective  areas,  althougn 
certain  nationalist  vievs  entered  into  the  charters  of  the  groups  vhich 
only  peripherally  could  have  been  regarded  as  defense  of  human  rights. 

In  the  Ukrainian  group,  for  example,  the  declaration  of  the  aims  of  the 
group  included  the  goal  "to  strive  for  accreditation  in  the  Ukraine  of 
foreign  press  correspondents  and  representatives,  for  the  formation  of 
an  independent  nevs  agency  and  for  other  measures  towards  the  promotion 
of  the  free  flow  of  information  and  ideas,"  and  to  have  the  Ukraine  made 
"a  sovereign  European  nation  and  a  member  of  the  UN,  to  be  represented 
by  its  own  delegation  at  all  international  conferences  the  implemen¬ 
tation  of  the  Helsinki  Accords. "31  Similarly,  the  Lithuanian  group  in¬ 
cluded  a  reminder  that  the  Lithuanian  Soviet  Socialist  Republic  vas  es¬ 
tablished  as  the  result  of  Soviet  occupation  in  19^0.32  The  goals  of  the 
Armenian  group  included  Armenian  membership  in  the  UN  and  the  reunifica¬ 
tion  of  a  part  of  Azerbaidzhan  with  Armenia. 33 


Mi--  .H. (ttijMrtriiitffTirraMfc  * < 

2.  The  Working  Commission  to  Investigate  Misuse  of  Psychiatry  for 
Political  Purposes 

This  Commission  was  formed  on  5  January  1977  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Moscow  Helsinki  Monitoring. Croup,  and  one  of  its  five  founding  members 
was  mathematician  BAjChMIN.31*  The  activity  of  this  group  consisted  of 
writing  letters  to  Soviet  organizations,  psychiatric  hospitals  and  for¬ 
eign  phychiatric  associations  about  the  misuse  of  psychiatry  in  the  USSR. 
The  group  published  a  "Samizdat"  newsletter,  "Information  Bulletin," 
starting  in  June  1977.  By  Summer  1978,  through  a  process  of  imprison¬ 
ment  and  harrassment,  only  BAKhMIN  was  left  of  the  original  five  members 
to  continue  the  vork  of  the  commission. 

F.  Armenian  Political  Prisoner  Fund 

Physicist  NAZARYaN  organized  the  fund  to  collect  donations  for  four¬ 
teen  Armenian  prisoners  and  their  families  in  February  1976.35  The  pris¬ 
oners  had  been  sentenced  in  nine  political  trials  in  Yerevan  from  1973 
to  197U,  and  NAZARYaN,  indicating  that  he  was  acting  in  accordance  witn 
the  UN  Charter  and  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights,  as  well  as 
with  the  Final  Act  of  the  CSCE*  stated  that  it  was  the  obligation  of 
one's  conscience  to  do  this.  He  appealed  to  all  Armenians  in  the  world 
to  support  the  fund,  saying  that  the  political  views  of  the  political 
prisoners  should  not  play  a  role  in  the  decision  to  support  them,  tnat 
tne  issue  was  a  moral  one,  and  should  be  supported  by  all  good  Armenians. 

G.  The  Russian  Public  Fund  to  Aid  Political  Prisoners 

This  fund  was  established  by  Solzhenitsyn  shortly  after  his  forced 
emigration  to  the  Wes z  in  197 and  was  managed  by  Ginzburg  until  the 
latter's  arrest  in  February  1977.3®  The  fund  provided  food  and  clothing 
to  political  prisoners,  exiles,  people  hospitalized  for  political  reasons, 
and  to  defendents  awaiting  trial.  The  fund  also  gave  financial  assistance 
to  recently-released  political  prisoners  and  to  the  families  of  political 
prisoners  to  enable  them  to  visit  the  prisoners  and  support  themselves. 

The  fund  administrators  maintained  lists  of  political  prisoners  eligible 
for  such  aid,  and  among  those  scientists  helped  by  the  fund  were  ORLOV, 
ShchARANSKIY ,  DAVYOV  and  KAMPOV.  After  Ginzburg's  arrest  the  management 
of  the  fund  vas  turned  over  to  Khodorovich,  who  was  assisted  in  this  by 
scientists  LANDA  and  LYuBARSKIY . 37  After  LYuBARSKIY's  and  Khodorovica's 
emigration  in  1977,  LANDA  vas  left  vith  the  primary  responsibility  for 
administering  the  fund. 


2.  Religious /Ethnic  Groups 

This  section  deals  vith  dissident  groups  which  represent  religious  or 
ethnic  interests.  In  most  cases  the  ethnic  groups  were  loosely  organ¬ 
ized  and  had  spokesmen  rather  than  leaders  to  present  demands  to  Soviet 
authorities  and  information  to  Western  nevsmen.  The  religious  dissident 
groups,  on  the  other  hand,  were  more  tightly  structured  and  had  definite 
leaders.  Scientists  participated  in  significant  numbers  in  only  tvo 
ethnic  groups  and  tvo  religious  groups,  as  far  as  could  be  determined. 

The  fact  that  the  main  "Samizdat"  sources  used  for  this  paper  were  Moscow 
based,  Russian  and  secular  might  be  the  reason  that  more  information  was 
not  found  on  such  large  religious /ethnic  movements  as  the  Ukrainian,  Bap¬ 
tist,  Pentecostal,  Lithuanian  Catholic,  Meskhi-Turk,  Georgian  and  etnnic 
German  movements. 

A.  The  Jevish  Dissident  Movement 

The  Jevish  movement  is  the  most  significant,  in  terms  of  international 
support  and  numerical  strength,  of  all  the  religious /ethnic  dissident 
groups.  The  movement  is  vastly  different  from  most  of  the  others,  though, 
in  that  its  main  goal  was  the  free  emigration  of  Soviet  citizens  of  Jev- 
isn  ethnic  background  to  Israel,  i.e.,  not  to  change  the  Soviet  system 
but  to  abandon  it.  The  Jevish  movement  is  also  unique  in  that  the  USSR 
has  partially  acceded  to  this  goal,  albeit  inconsistently  and  belatedly, 
Jevish  dissident  scientists  are  subjected  to  more  harrassment  and  admin¬ 
istrative  malice  on  the  part  of  Soviet  authorities  than  any  other  dissi¬ 
dent  group.  The  Jevish  scientist  is  automatically  removed  from  his  Job 
upon  his  request  for  emigration,  regardless  of  vhether  his  request  is  ac¬ 
cepted.  Jevs  are  also  liable  for  military  call-up  after  their  request 
for  emigration,  which  further  prolongs  the  period  of  time  they  must  spend 
in  the  USSR  without  their  regular  Jobs.  To  protest  their  treatment,  Jev¬ 
ish  dissidents  have  taken  such  measures  as  hunger  strikes,  news  confer¬ 
ences,  sit-down  protests,  demonstrations,  and,  particularly  for  scien¬ 
tists  of  Jevish  background,  international  scientific  symposia  not  offici¬ 
ally  authorized. 

The  starting  point  of  the  organized  Jevish  emigration  movement  could 
be  considered  the  1970-71  trials  of  nearly  thirty  Jevs  accused  of  the  ip 
June  1970  attempted  hijacking  at  Leningrad's  Smolnoye  Airport. 3°  Nearly 
tvo  hundred  people  were  arrested  in  Riga,  Odessa,  Khar'kov,  Kishinev,  Kiev 
and  Leningrad  after  the  attempt,  and  the  first  trial  was  held  15-2?  Decem¬ 
ber  1970.  Tvo  of  those  convicted  at  tne  trial  received  death  sentences, 
later  commuted  to  prison  terms  in  the  wake  of  the  intense  Western  and  So¬ 
viet  dissident  protest. 39  The  protest  united  the  non-Jevish  Soviet  dissi¬ 
dent  movement  and  tnose  Jevs  avaiting  emigration,  0  and  as  sucn  gave  tne 
Jevs  a  sense  of  community  and  a  specific  issue  around  vnich  tney  could  u- 

Jewish  scientists,  except  for  those  in  physics  and  electronics,  were 
allowed  to  emigrate  with  relatively  little  harrassment  from  the  Fall  of 
1971  until  the  Spring  of  1972.^1  After  1S72,  however,  the  emigration  of 
specialists  was  sharply  curtailed,  first,  by  the  imposition  of  an  emi¬ 
gration  tax  allegedly  to  pay  the  state  back  for  educational  expenses, ^2 
and  later,  after  the  abolishment  of  the  tax  in  1973,  by  purported  se¬ 
curity  considerations.  The  emigration  of  all  Jews  was  low  from  1974 
to  1977,  because  of  official  harrassment  and  rejection  of  prospective 
emigrants.  Only  in  1978  did  the  Soviets  again  allow  emigration  on  a  pre- 
1974  scale  (30,000  per  year).  3  in  fact,  if  emigration  were  to  continue 
in  tae  sefcond  half  of  1979  as  it  did  in  tne  first  half,  the  emigration  of 
Jews  would  be  well  over  30,000  for  the  year. 44  Thus,  it  seem3  that  emi¬ 
gration  is  getting  easier  for  Jews  in  general,  but  it  is  too  early  to 
determine  whether  Jewish  scientists  will  also  share  in  this. 

As  mentioned  above,  one  way  the  Soviet  authorities  dealt  with  prospec¬ 
tive  Jewish  emigrants  was  to  call  them  up  for  military  service  upon  their 
requests  for  emigration.  This  happened  to  a  number  of  Jewish  scientists, 
including  BOYKO,  Ye.  LEVICh,  M.  AZBEL ' ,  AYNBINDER,  GURVITs,  VORONEL',  R0- 
GIIISKIY,  YaKhOT,  FIIJKELShTEYN  and  ShEPELEV.^5  After  their  tour  of  duty 
the  Soviet  authorities  could  "legally"  refuse  their  emigration  requests, 
for  a  military  security  clearance  prohibited  emigration  for  seven  years 
after  access  to  the  appropriate  material  and  equipment.^  The  call-up  was 
also  used  to  remove  Jewish  activists  from  Moscow  during  President  Nixon's 
visit  in  1972,  when  a  number  of  them  received  notices  to  report  to  "train¬ 
ing  camps. "47  SAKhAROV  saw  this  kind  of  action  as  an  attempt  to  frighten 
people  who  wanted  to  emigrate. 46 

Jewish  scientists  were  able  to  maintain  some  semblance  of  scientific 
activity  after  the  perfunctory  firings  following  their  requests  for  emi¬ 
gration.  The  scientists  organized  and  conducted  scientific  seminars  at 
each  other's  apartments,  inviting  even  foreign  scientists  to  participate. 
The  best  known  of  these  seminars  were  those  organized  by  Moscow  physicists 
VORONEL ' ,  M.  AZBEL'  and  ROZENShTEYN,  and  Kiev  physicist  KISLIK. 

VORONEL'  held  weekly  Sunday  physics  seminars  at  his  apartment  in  Mos¬ 
cow  from  1972  to  1974.  9  The  goal  of  these  seminars  was  to  keep  abreast 
of  the  latest  scientific  research  and  to  exchange  competent  evaluations 
of  each  other's  scientific  work.  VQR0NEL'  planned  an  international  semi¬ 
nar  for  July  1974,  but  the  KGB  arrested  and  confined  him,  M.  AZBEL'  and 
BRAILOVSKIY  on  25  June  for  fifteen  days  to  prevent  the  seminar  from  oe- 
ing  held. 50  None  of  the  foreign  scientists  vas  given  a  visa  and  the  KGB 
placed  all  the  other  members  of  the  seminar  under  surveillance. 51  Scien¬ 
tists  who  had  participated  in  V0R0NEL' s  seminars  included  AGURSKIY,  M. 
VAYNER,  YaKIR  and  GERBER. 52  ia  the  fall  of  1974,  the  members  of  the  semi¬ 
nar  were  subjected  to  a  great  deal  of  persecution,  including  accusati  ms 
of  parasitism,  cutting  off  the  postal  service,  and  surveillance.  Finally, 
on  o  October  1974,  VORONEL 's  apartment  was  locked  by  the  police  and  the 
members  were  ordered  to  disperse. 53  They  went  to  BRAILOVSKIY'S  apartment 
instead  and  held  the  seminar  there.  It  is  not  known  what  happened  the 
following  week,  but  the  seminar  did  continue. 


M,  AZBEL '  took  over  responsibility  for  VORONEL ’ s  seminar  after  the 
latter  emigrated  in  late  157U.51*  The  seminar  continued  to  meet  on  a 
regular  basis  until  26  May  1975 ,  when  AZBEL'  was  called  into  the  KGB  and 
told  that  the  scientific  seminar  vas  considered  a  Zionist  garnering 
whose  goal  vas  anti-Soviet  propaganda,  i.e.,  a  criminal  offense. 55  AZBEL' 
was  tola  that  if  he  did  not  cease  this  activity,  he  would  be  liable  for 
criminal  prosecution.  It  is  clear  that  this  threat  did  not  stop  AZBEL' , 
as  on  17-20  April  1977  a  scientific  seminar  was  held  in  nis  apartment;  it 
is  possible  that  numerous  others  occurred  between  May  1975  and  this  date. 
BRAILOVSKIY  probably  assumed  the  leadership  of  the  seminar  after  AZBEL 's 
emigration  in  1977,  for  he  reportedly  had  been  holding  weekly  scientific 
seminars  with  Jewish  scientists  prior  to  December  1976,  when  his  apart¬ 
ment  was  searched  and  papers  related  to  a  planned  international  scienti¬ 
fic  conference  were  confiscated. 57 

Other  scientific  seminars  were  ROZENShTEYU's  seminar  on  theoretical 
biology  in  Moscow,  which  was  active  at  least  in  late  1975, 56  ana  KIS- 
LIK's  semi-weekly  engineering  seminar  in  Kiev,  active  in  the  fall  of 
1975.59  KISLIK's  seminar  was  particularly  persecuted  by  the  KGB  because 
people  other  than  Jewish  scientists  who  had  been  refused  emigration  par¬ 
ticipated  in  it.  KISLIK  vas  told  by  the  KGB  that  he  would  be  responsible 
if  anyone  got  hurt  for  attending  the  seminars . 

Jewish  scientists  were  also  active  in  promoting  Jewish  culture  and 
history  within  the  Jewish  movement.  Physicist  FAYN  organized  a  three- 
day  international  symposium  on  the  state  and  future  development  of  Jew¬ 
ish  culture  in  the  USSR,  scheduled  for  late  December  1976,60  and  VORO¬ 
NEL'  and  YaKhOT  published  a  "Samizdat”  Journal,  Jews  in  the  USSR,  which 
dealt  with  the  history,  culture  and  problems  of  Soviet  Jews  and  appeared 
from  October  1972  t-o  at  least  1975.61  Although  FAYN's  symposium  was 
shortened  to  a  one-day  seminar  after  all  the  meabers  of  the  organizing 
committee  and  most  of  the  speakers  were  arrested,  it  was  an  important 
unifying  force  among  Jewish  dissidents.  The  organizing  committee,  inci¬ 
dentally,  was  composed  of  thirty  Jews,  eleven  of  whom  were  scientists, 62 
and  of  the  seven  speakers  arrested,  three  were  scientists. 63  Among  the 
other  particinants  at  the  symposium  were  the  scientists  FAYeRMAN,  Shch- 
DENGORN,  and  ShEPELEV.6k  The  majority  of  the  Jews  vorking  on  VORONEL’ s 
and  YaKhOT' s  "Samizdat”  Journal  were  also  scientists:  M.  AZBEL',  BRAIL¬ 
OVSKIY,  LUNTs,  AGURSKIY,  GITERMAN  and  FINKEL’ShTEYN.65  The  Journal  vas 
considered  a  major  contribution  to  the  attempts  of  Soviet  Jews  to  main¬ 
tain  their  national  values. 

What  is  the  future  of  Soviet  Jews  in  science?  It  is  likely  that  in 
the  future  there  will  be  no  more  Jews,  at  least  those  who  affirm  their 
ethnic  background,  involved  in  Soviet  science.  There  seems  to  be  an 
effort  to  keep  Jews  out  of  the  scientific  departments  of  the  universities 
and  institutes,  particularly  since  1976  in  the  field  of  mathematics. oo 
There  have  even  been  allegations  that  mathematicians  who  are  Jewish  were 
treated  worse  than  other  Jews  in  the  USSR.  It  is  likely  that  this  pro¬ 
cess  of  purging  Jews  from  science,  through  emigration  as  well  as  exclusion, 
vill  take  at  least  a  generation,  so  It  would  be  very  difficult  to  deter¬ 
mine  its  effect  on  Soviet  science  and  technology  at  the  present  time.  It 
would  not  be  surprising,  thougn,  if  a  lack  of  continuity  were  felt  in  the 


next  decade  because  of  the  large  number  of  middle-level  scientists  who 
have  emigrated  and  will  not  be  filling  senior  positions  in  the  future. 

3.  The  Crimean  Tatar  Dissident  Movement 

The  Crimean  Tatar  movement  has  the  goal  of  returning  the  Crimean  Tatar 
people  from  Central  Asia,  where  they  were  deported  by  Stalin  in  1?W*  for 
alleged  Nazi  collaboration,  to  the  Crimea. 67  In  1967,  the  Crimean  Tatar 
people  were  officially  rehabilitated,  meaning  that  they  were  no  longer 
accused  of  treason;  they  were  not,  however,  allowed  to  return  to  their 
homeland.  Crimean  Tatars  have  been  protesting  their  forced  exile  since 
1957,  by  sending  representatives  to  Moscow  to  talk  with  governmental  and 
Party  officials  and  by  collecting  signatures  for  protest  letters.  Al¬ 
though  there  had  been  intermittent  arrests  and  trials  of  Crimean  Tatar 
activists  since  1959,  the  wave  of  repression  began  in  earnest  only  in 
1967,  after  the  Crimean  Tatars  threatened  to  carry  out  mass  demonstrations. 
Scientists  involved  in  the  movement  have  included  KhALILOV,  DZhEMILEV, 

KhALILOV  was  one  of  sixty-five  Crimean  Tatars  chosen  as  representatives 
to  present  demands  for  repatriation  to  the  23rd  CPSU  Congress  in  Moscow 
in  1966.68  DZhEMILEV,  the  leading  Crimean  Tatar  dissident  scientist,  has 
been  involved  in  the  movement  since  1965,  when  he,  too,  was  sent  as  a 
representative  of  the  Crimean  fatar  people  to  Moscov.69  DZhEMILEV  was 
also  one  of  the  twenty  Crimean  Tatars  received  by  governmental  officials 
Andropov,  Georgadze,  Rudenko  and  Shchelokov  on  21  July  1967; 70  DZhEMILEV, 
moreover,  incurred  the  wrath  of  the  authorities  by  openly  accusing  Georg¬ 
adze  of  lying  at  the  meeting.  He  was  soon  afterwards  tried  and  convicted 
of  organizing  the  large  demonstration  of  Crimean  Tatars  in  Tashkent  of  27 
August  1967.71  From  November  1967  to  October  1968  another  five  scientists 
were  arrested  for  inflaming  discord  among  the  nationalities  and  for  slan¬ 
dering  the  Soviet  system:  MEMETOV,  Yu.  OSMANOV,  S.  OSMANOV,  KhAIROV,  and 

MEMETOV,  Yu.  OSMANOV,  and  S.  OSMANOV  were  tried  together  in  Tashkent 
in  1968.72  MEMETOV  was  arrested  on  26  November  1967  during  a  trip  to 
Tashkent,  Yu.  OSMANOV  was  arrested  in  January  1968,  and  S.  OSMANOV  was 
arrested  in  February  1968.  Additional  information  is  known  only  about 
Yu.  OSMANOV,  primarily  because  he  was  a  prolific  writer  of  Crimean  Tat¬ 
ar  "Samizdat."  He  was  warned  on  16  May  1967  by  the  procurator  to  stop 
writing  under  the  threat  of  criminal  prosecution. 73  He  refused,  how¬ 
ever,  stating  that  he  was  acting  within  the  spirit  of  the  20th  and  22nd 
Party  Congresses  and  the  Party's  program  on  the  nationality  question. 

On  22  November  1967  he  was  called  before  the  director  of  the  Institute 
of  High  Energy  Physics  and  a  Central  Committee  representative  and  vas 
apparently  reprimanded.  OSMANOV  had  earlier  been  expelled  from  the 
Joint  Institute  of  Nuclear  Research  in  Dubna  for  being  a  member  of  an 
underground  organization  of  young  Crimean  Tatars. 

KhAIROV  was  arrested  in  September  1968  after  a  search  of  his  apartment 


uncovered  incriminating  documents,  including  SAXhAfiOV ' s  "Thougnts  on  Pro¬ 
gress,  Peaceful  Coexistence  and  Intellectual  Freedom,”  transcripts  of 
trials  of  Crimean  Tatars,  and  Persian  poetry. KADYYeV  vas  arrested  in 
October  1965  and  accused  of  compiling  documents  which  defamed  the  USSR. 75 
These  tvo  scientists  were  tried  along  with  eight  other  Crimean  Tatar  sa¬ 
tirists  in  the  so-called  "Tashkent  Trial”  of  1  July  -  5  August  1969. 7b 
KhAIROV's  wife  had  asked  dissident  ?.  G.  Grigorenko  to  appear  at  the  tri¬ 
al  as  a  public  defender,  to  which  he  agreed. ?7  When  he  arrived  in  Tash¬ 
kent,  however,  he  was  arrested.  KADYYeV 's  background  wan  similar  to  the 
otner  Crimean  Tatar  dissidents:  he  had  been  given  a  mandate  in  the  sum¬ 
mer  of  1966  to  represent  the  interests  of  a  group  of  Crimean  Tatars  liv¬ 
ing  in  Samarkand  before  governmental  and  Party  officials,?0  and  had  been 
one  of  the  ten  Crimean  Tatars  to  sign  an  open  letter  in  July  1968  anneal¬ 
ing  for  help  in  stopping  the  genocide  of  the  Crimean  Tatar  people.?^. 

DZhEMILEV  participated  in  the  25  August  1966  demonstration  in  Moscow's 
Rea  Square  against  the  Soviet  occupation  of  Czechoslovakia0^  and  in  the 
June  1969  Crimean  Tatar  demonstration  in  Mayakovskiy  Square,  also  in  Mos¬ 
cow.01  In  May  1972,  DZhEMILEV,  together  with  KhALILOV  and  KhAIROV  parti¬ 
cipated  in  a  meeting  of  nearly  sixty  representatives  of  the  Crimean  Tatar 
people,  during  vhich  the  representatives  reasserted  the  determination  of 
the  people  to  return  to  the  Crimea,  despite  the  persecution  and  repres¬ 
sion.02  DZhEMILEV  was  arrested  in  October  1972  and  was  sentenced  to  a 
term  of  three  years  confinement.0 3  In  1977  he  applied  to  emigrate  but 
was  refused. DZhEMILEV  is  the  only  Crimean  Tatar  scientist  to  actively 
dissent  since  1972.  In  1977  he  held  a  press  conference  in  Moscow  where 
he  told  Western  correspondents  about  the  problems  of  the  Crimean  Tatar 
people,  apparently  becoming  the*ir  spokesman. He  has  been  described  as 
one  of  those  activists  in  the  nationalities'  movement  who  have  understood 
tnat  the  solution  of  the  nationality  problem  was  inseparably  linkea  witn 
the  problem  of  democracy  in  the  USSR,  and  that  the  tragedy  of  the  Crimean 
Tatar  people  was  not  only  the  result  of  the  evil  deeds  of  individuals, 
but  was  the  product  of  totalitarianism.00  Thus,  DZhEMILEV  seems  to  bridge 
the  gap  between  the  ethnic  movement  and  the  human  rights/democratic  move¬ 
ment,  an  acnievement  potentially  quite  significant  for  both  movements. 

This  would  widen  the  scope  of  dissidence  among  Crimean  Tatars  to  include 
support  of  human  rights,  and  would  increase  the  support  for  the  Crimean 
Tatar  cause  by  enlisting  the  more  powerful  and  influential  human  rignts 
activists,  with  the  accompanying  foreign  press  coverage. 

C.  Christian  Committee  for  the  Defense  of  Believers  in  the  USSR 

The  Committee  was  formed  on  27  December  1976  with  three  members,  all 
Russian  Orthodox,  one  of  whom  was  chemist  KAPITANChUK,  who  served  as  ;he 
secretary  of  the  organization. 87  Mathematician  ShchEGLOV  Joined  the  group 
in  1976°®  and  physicist  REGELSON  has  signed  documents  emanating  from  the 
group. °9  The  Committee  was  formed  because,  in  the  words  of  the  members, 
tne  leadership  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church  and  the  leaders  of  other  re¬ 
ligious  organizations  had  not  defended  the  rights  of  believers,  so  they 


had  to  defend  their  own  rights.  Even  though  all  the  members  were  Russian 
Orthodox,  the  Committee  has  defended  Baptists,  Roman  Catholics  and  Jews, 
one  of  whom  was  mathematician  BEGUN. ^  The  Committee  has  collected  stud¬ 
ied  and  disseminated  information  on  the  condition  of  believers  in  the 
USSR,  has  rendered  consultative  assistance  to  believers,  and  has  tried  to 
improve  Soviet  legislation  on  religion.  The  Committee  nas  claimed  that 
it  vas  loyal  to  the  USSR  and  Soviet  lav  and  that  it  vas  willing  to  work 
with  governmental  organizations  if  such  a  collaboration  would  improve  the 
situation  of  believers  in  the  USSR. 

0.  Buddist  Group  in  Ulan-Ude 

A  group  of  intellectuals,  headed  by  a  leading  scholar  of  Buddhism,  met 
to  study  and  practice  Buddhism  in  private  apartments  in  Ulan-Ude  from 
1970  to  1972.9^  Nine  of  the  participants  were  arrested  in  1972  and  the 
leader,  B.  D.  Dandaron,  vas  tried  18-25  December  1972  for  leading  a  reli¬ 
gious  sect.  Of  the  twenty  or  so  people  who  vere  involved  in  this  group, 
one  vas  a  scientist,  physicist  ARANOV,  and  the  wife  of  one  of  the  members 
vas  a  biologist,  ZhELEZNOVA.  ZhELEZNOVA* s  husband,  Dandaron' s  first  "dis¬ 
ciple"  and  an  Asian  historian,  vas  declared  mentally  irresponsible  and 
vas  confined  to  a  psychiatric  hospital.  Apparently,  ZhELEZNOVA  vas  her¬ 
self  persecuted  for  her  husband's  crime,  although  the  information  on  this 
vas  not  very  clear.  * 

3.  Revolutionary/Criminal  Groups 

There  are  relatively  few  known  revolutionary /criminal  groups  in  the 
Soviet  dissident  movement,  and  of  the  fev  only  five  can  be  determined  to 
have  haa  scientists  as  members:  one  vas  ai  Anarchist  group;  two  vere 
Marxist;  one  vas  Christian  Socialist;  one  vas  Zionist.  Because  of  toe 
small  number  of  members  in  all  of  the  revolutionary/criminal  groups  and 
the  limited  nature  of  their  activities,  it  is  highly  doubtful  that  the 
groups  posed  credible  threats  to  the  Soviet  system;  the  Zionist  group,  in 
fact,  wanted  only  to  leave  the  Soviet  Union,  not  disrupt  it.  To  the  So¬ 
viet  authorities,  hovever,  tne  existence  of  such  groups  in  the  USSR  vas 
an  anathema,  particularly  since  it  was  a  revolutionary/criminal  group, 
the  Bolshevik  Party,  which  overthrev  the  existing  government  in  1917. 

A.  Tne  All-Russian  Socialist  Christian  Union  for  the  Liberation  of  the 
People  (VSKhSON) 

VSKhSON  vas  formed  on  2  February  196^*  by  four  Russian  Orthodox  students 

studying  at  Leningrad  State  University:  I.  V.  Ogurtsov,  M.  Yu.  Sado, 

Ye.  A.  Vagin  and  B.  A.  Averichnin.^  The  group  lasted  for  three  years 
and  eventually  had  a  membersnip  of  about  thirty  individuals,  tvo  of  vnom 
were  scientists. 9’  VSKhSON  was  a  secret,  neo-Slavopnile ,  military-polit¬ 
ical  organization,  an  "underground  army,"'^  which  was  committed  to  liber¬ 
ate  the  USSR  from  a  tyrannical  totalitarian  regime  and  to  establish  a  so- 
cialist-Christian  society  and  government.  The  group  boasted  of  a  large 
library,  a  translating-research  staff,  a  propaganda-ideological  depart¬ 
ment,  fifteen  typewriters,  photoenlargers,  and  over  ten  cameras.  At  the 
time  of  its  forced  dissolution,  the  group  had  a  military  structure  of 
"squads"  and  "platoons,"  although  the  plans  for  military  training  had  not 
been  implemented  by  this  time.  The  KGB  first  heard  of  VSKhSON  in  March 
1966,95  and  in  June  and  July  of  that  year  the  KGB  interrogated  five  of 
its  members. 9^  The  only  concrete  thing  the  group  ever  attempted  to  do, 
however,  was  to  repair  a  printing  press  so  that  they  could  print  leaf¬ 
lets  with  the  heading,  "Fifty  Slogans  of  Liberation,"  for  distribution 
during  festivities  stirrounding  the  50th  Anniversary  of  the  Bolshevik  Re¬ 
volution  in  1967,  which  they  failed  to  do. 9?  None  the  less,  in  late  1967 
and  early  1968  twenty-one  of  its  members  were  sentenced  to  terms  ranging 
from  ten  months  to  fifteen  years  for  conspiracy  with  intent  to  seize  pow¬ 
er,  and  the  group  ceased  to  exist. 9° 

Twenty-six  of  VSKhSON' s  members  had  attended  university,  tvo  of  whom 
were  the  chemist  IVLEV,  who  became  the  organization's  eighth  member  in 
January  1965,95  ^  PETROV,  who  was  brought  into  the  organization  in  No¬ 
vember  1966100  and  was  one  of  its  last  members.  While  in  VSKhSON,  IVLEV 
distributed  anti-Soviet  literature  and  recruited  other  members.  In  the 
fall  of  1965  he  was  instructed  by  one  of  the  group's  leaders  to  find  out 
the  reasons  the  neo-Marxist  group,  "Union  of  Communards,"  composed  of 
chemistry  students  at  Leningrad  State  University,  was  uncovered  by  the 
authorities.101  IVLEV  was  presumably  chosen  for  this  assignment  because 
he  was  a  chemist  himself.  PETROV  was  assigned  to  a  squad  which  was  pur¬ 
portedly  training  for  a  coup  d'etat  in  Leningrad  set  for  October  1967. 10^ 
Some  of  the  meetings  of  the  squad,  in  fact,  were  held  in  his  apartment. 
PETROV  also  photo-copied  anti-Soviet  literature  for  the  organization.  On 
U  February  1967  PETROV,  who  had  Joined  VSKhSON  out  of  disgust  for  the  Com¬ 
munist  Party,  experienced  a  revived  sense  of  loyalty  to  the  Party  and  de¬ 
nounced  the  organization  to  the  KGB,10^  and  by  12  July  19&7  all  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  organization  were  under  arrest.  IVLEV  received  a  comparative¬ 
ly  mild  sentence,  only  two  years  confinement.  PETROV,  not  surprisingly, 
received  no  sentence  at  all.  After  his  release  from  confinement,  IVLEV 
worked  as  an  engineer  at  the  Obukovo  Construction  Combine.10  Ue  has  not, 
as  far  as  can  be  determined,  resumed  his  dissident  activities. 

B.  Society  of  Madmen  on  the  Loose 

This  group  was  composed  of  young  mathematicians,  needed  by  Pli^ENOV, 
were  interested  in  studying  the  history  of  the  Russian  revolutionary  novs- 
ment.105  The  group,  based  in  Leningrad,  later  became  involved  witn  a 


group  of  students  at  the  Leningrad  Library  Institute  and  some  history 
students,  also  interested  in  the  Russian  revolutionary  tradition.  Al¬ 
though  the  society  apparently  made  no  plans  to  overthrow  the  Soviet  gov¬ 
ernment  or  implement  a  revolution,  four  of  the  society's  members,  includ¬ 
ing  PIMENOV ,  were  arrested  and  brougnt  to  trial,  in  1957.  PIMENOV  con¬ 
tinued  his  dissident  activities  after  the  dissolution  of  the  society, 
though,  and  it  could  be  argued  that  whatever  group  is  united  around  PI¬ 
MENOV  is  a  continuation  of  this  society. 

C.  Leningrad  Marxist  Circle  "Union  of  Communards" 

This  neo-Marxist  group,  composed  of  reportedly  two  hundred  chemistry 
students  at  Leningrad  State  University, was  uncovered  in  the  summer  of 
1965  and  accused  of  clandestinely  publishing  and  distributing  a  Journal, 
"Kolokol"  ("The  Bell,"  from  the  name  of  Herzen's  publication  in  the  19th 
century),  which  bore  the  epigraph,  "From  the  dictatorship  of  the  bureau¬ 
cracy  to  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat."  Only  four  issues  of  the 
Journal  were  published  before  the  KGB  broke  up  the  group. Nine  people 
were  arrested  for  the  publication  of  the  Journal,  the  group  leaders,  chem¬ 
ists  ROUKIN  and  KhAKhAYeV,  and  seven  others,  including  the  chemist  MASh- 
KOV.  Interestingly  enough,  RONKIN,  KhAKhAYeV,  and  MAShKOV  continued  their 
dissident  activities  in  prison.  On  12  February  1968  they  took  part  in  a 
hunger  strike  in  one  of  the  Mordovian  labor  camps,  demanding  they  they  be 
recognized  as  political  prisoners  rather  than  criminals  and  that  their 
living  conditions  be  improved. 

D.  "Revolutionary  Marxists" 

The  group,  headed  by  Yu.  V.  Vudka  and  0.  M.  Senin,  was  composed  of 
young  (20  to  27  year  old)  Komsomol  members  who  got  together  to  study  Marx¬ 
ist  literature. As  far  as  can  be  determined,  the  group  did  not  plan 
any  subversive  activities.  Thirteen  of  its  members  were  arrested  during 
the  Juiy-September  1969  period,  two  of  whom  were  involved  in  science.  The 
"Revolutionary  Marxists”  group  was  apparently  divided  into  two  sub-group3, 
"The  Marxist  Party  of  the  New  Type,"  based  in  Ryazan',  "The  Party  of 
True  Communists,"  based  in  Saratov.^0  The  Ryazan'  group  was  headed  by 
Vudka  and  was  composed  of  at  least  five  other  members ,  four  of  whom  were 
students  at  Ryazan'  Polytechnical  Institute.  The  Saratov  group  included 
as  its  members  physicist  KULIKOV  and  fourth-year  Saratov  State  University 
biology  student  FOKEYeV,  both  of  whom  were  arrested  in  1969. 

E.  Zionist  Groups:  "Kishinev  9"  and  the  "Leningrad  9" 


These  two  Zionist  groups  were  associated  with  the  attempted  hijacking 
of  a  Soviet  aircraft  at  Leningrad's  Smolnoye  Airport  on  15  June  1970. 

The  Zionist  group,  the  so-called  "Leningrad  11,"  which  included  no  sci¬ 
entists,  actually  attempted  the  hijacking,  wnile  the  "Kishinev  9"  and 
"Leningrad  9"  groups  supported  its  action  and  had  even  planned  similar 
actions  of  their  own.  The  "Leningrad  9"  group,  which  included  two  sci¬ 
entists,  was  brought  to  trial  11-20  May  1971.  The  "Kishinev  9"  group, 
which  included  three  scientists,  was  brought  to  trial  at  the  end  of  June 
in  the  same  year.  As  was  mentioned  above,  the  trials  of  the  "Leningrad 
11,"  "Leningrad  9"  and  "Kishinev  9"  led  to  the  unification  of  the  Jewish 
dissident  movement. 

The  "Leningrad  9"  group  was  accused  of  maintaining  contacts  with  Is¬ 
raeli  Zionist  organizations,  inciting  Soviet  Jews  to  emigrate,  and  dis¬ 
seminating  anti-Soviet  Zionist  literature. MOGILEVER,  one  of  the  sci¬ 
entists  in  the  group,  was  one  of  the  group's  founders L.  KORENBLIT, 
the  other  scientist,  was  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Zionist  "Samizdat" 
journal,  "Iton."11^  At  a  meeting  of  about  ten  Jewish  activitists  from 
Leningrad,  Moscow,  Riga  and  Khar'kov,  probably  in  1969  or  1970,  MOGILEVER 
proposed  that  a  single  Zionist  organization  be  created  to  unify  the  sepa¬ 
rate  Zionist  groups. The  proposal  was  not  accepted,  though,  in  favor 
of  maintaining  contact  among  the  groups  and  effecting  some  degree  of  coor¬ 
dination  of  their  activities.  MOGILEVER  was  also  involved  in  preparing 
Hebrew  language  textbooks  for  the  use  of  Jews  wishing  to  emigrate,  sign¬ 
ing  collective  protest  letters  to  Soviet  officials,  and  in  transmitting 
the  protest  letters  to  foreigners  for  dissemination  abroad.  He  vas  sen¬ 
tenced  to  four  years  confinement  in  1971  for  his  participation  in  the 
group.  KORENBLIT,  who  had  close  contacts  with  the  Zionist  groups  in  Mos¬ 
cow  and  Riga  on  the  publication  of  the  Zionist  Journal,11^  also  taught 
Hebrew  to  Jews  wishing  to  emigrate.  He  had  not,  however,  supported  those 
Jews  who  had  planned  to  hijack  the  Soviet  aircraft  to  Israel,  and  had  even 
attempted  to  talk  one  of  the  "Leningrad  11,"  Dymshits,  out  of  proceeding 
with  the  plan.  KORENBLIT  was  sentenced  to  three  years  confinement  in  1971. 

The  "Kishinev  9"  group  vas  a  composite  of  former  students  from  Lenin¬ 
grad  who  had  joined  forces  with  Jewish  activists  in  Kishinev  upon  their 
transfer  to  the  city  in  March  1970,  and  GAL'PERIH's  group,  vnicn  had  been 
in  Kishinev  since  about  1968.^°  The  Kishinev  group  maintained  close  con¬ 
tacts  with  the  Leningrad  group;  it  was  the  Kishinev  group,  in  fact,  whicn 
printed  the  Zionist  Journal  "Iton"  for  the  Leningraders.  The  Kishinev 
group  also  conducted  lecture  and  study  sessions  on  the  history  of  the  Jew¬ 
ish  people  and  Soviet  nationality  policies. 

GAL'FERIN,  VOLOShIN  and  LEVTT  were  the  three  scientists  in  the  "Kishi¬ 
nev  9"  group.  GAL'PERIN  vas  selected  to  take  part  in  the  hijacking  plan 
as  early  as  February  1970,  and  he  got  four  other  members  of  his  group,  in¬ 
cluding  VOLOShIN,  to  agree  to  go  along  with  him.  GAL'PERIN  collected  mon- 
#ey  to  buy  the  airplane  tickets,  but  once  it  was  determined  that  Israel  vas 
not  going  to  support  sucn  activity,  the  plan  was  dropped,  GAL'PERIN  and 
VOLOShIN  had  also  been  involved  in  tne  acquisition  of  an  electric  dupli¬ 
cating  machine  in  June  1969  to  improve  their  "Samizdat"  capabilities,  '"he 
two  had  stolen  the  main  components  and  parts  of  the  machine  from  a  design 
institute,  but  were  unable  to  reassemble  it.  The  parts  were  finally  sent 
to  Leningrad,  where  it  was  reassembled  under  the  supervision  of  members 


of  the  Leningrad  group.  LEVIT  had  been  involved  in  copying  "Samizdat" 
and  had  taught  classes  on  -Jewish  culture  in  Riga  in  1969.  Another  sci¬ 
entist,  E.  BONDAR',  although  not  a  member  of  the  group,  was  convicted 
of  refusing  to  give  evidence  at  the  trial  of  the  ’’Kishinev  9"  in  August 
1971. GAL 1 PZRIU ,  incidentally,  received  tvo-and-a-half  years  con¬ 
finement,  and  VOLOShIN  and  LEVIT  both  received  two  years. 

*♦.  Scientific/Professional  Groupings 

In  the  category  of  "scientific/professional  groupings”  are  those  groups 
made  up  of  Soviet  dissident  scientists  who  work  together  professionally. 

It  is  not  known  if  the  scientists  were  dissidents  before  tney  began  work¬ 
ing  together  or  if  one  of  them  influenced  his  fellows  to  become  dissidents 
none  the  less,  it  does  pose  the  interesting  possibility  that  a  dissident 
scientist's  co-workers  might  be  prone  to  dissidence.  A  particularly  good 
source  for  identifying  working  relationships  in  the  scientific  field  is 
the  Letoois ’  zhurnalnykh  statey  (Guide  to  Periodical  Literature),  from 
which  one  can  derive  information  on  co-authors  of  scientific  articles. 

One  professional  group  centered  around  the  biologist  KOVALEV,  BERKEN- 
3LIT,118  ChAYLAKhYaN,11^*  and  SMOLYaNINIV , 120  all  of  whom  signed  the  Galans 
nov-Ginzburg  protest  letter  in  1968,  have  co-authored  scientific  articles 
with  KOVALEV  in  the  time  frames,  respectively,  o'  1962-72,  1961-72,  and 
1965-71.  BOYTsOVA,  KOVALEV’s  wife  since  at  least  19T>  and  one  who  pro¬ 
tested  his  arrest  in  1971*,  co-authored  an  article  with  >iim  in  1970. 121 
LIBERMAN,  who  had  protested  the  threatened  expulsion  in  1969  of  ABAKUMOV 
and  DIONISIYeV  from  the  Institute  of  Biophysics  for  anti-Soviet  remarks122 
was  a  co-author  of  a  paper  with  KOVALEV  in  196612^  and  with  SMOLYaNINOV 
in  1967. KOVALEV,  incidentally,  had  received  his  Candidate  of  Bio¬ 
logical  Sciences  degree  from  the  Institute  of  Biophysics, 12^  KOVALEV  al¬ 
so  has  co-authored  with  GEL'FAND  in  1963; 12<3  GEL'FAND  had  protested  the 
Galanskov-Ginzburg  trial  and  VOL'PlN's  incarceration  in  1968.  KARPOVICh, 
who  had  co-authored  with  SMOLYaNINQV  in  1972-73  but  not  with  KOVALEV,  pro¬ 
tested  KOVALEV's  arrest  in  1971*  and  his  trial  in  1976.  Thus,  eight  sci¬ 
entists  tied  by  professional  interests  were  all  dissidents.  One  can  ada 
to  this  number  four  of  KOVALEV's  co-workers  at  the  Moscow  Fish-Breeding 
and  Improvement  Station,  ZhUKOVSKAYa,  MIZYaKIN,  RYVKIN  and  YaNKELEVICh.120 
KOVALEV's  group  apparently  shared  his  views  on  the  Soviet  system, 125  and 
all  of  them,  with  the  exception  of  ZhUKOVSKAYa,  had  already  or  were  later 
to  become  involved  in  dissident  activities:  MIZYaKIN  supported  TVERDOKh- 
LE30V  in  1976  and  Ginzburg  in  1977,  ®  RYVKIN  protested  KOVALEV's  intern¬ 

ment  in  1971*;1^  and  YaNKELEVICh,  SAKhAROV's  son-in-lav,  signed  protest 
letters  on  TVERDOKhLEBOV ' s ,  KOVALEV's  and  Ginzburg's  arrests,  as  well  as 
signing  letters  of  support  for  Charter  77  and  the  Helsinki  Monitoring 
Group  in  1977.  lo2 

The  mathematicians  who  signed  tne  protest  letter  on  VOL'PlN's  incarce¬ 
ration  in  i960  were  also  bound  by  professional  ties.  S.  NOVIKOV  and  P0ST- 
NIKOV  co-autnored  in  19oL,133  and  KR0NR0D  co-autnored  in  19^7, 

and  GEL'FAND  and  PYaTETsKIY-SHAFIEO  co-authored  in  15&4,^33  as  aid  GEL'- 
FAND  and  ShILOV  in  1^5c  ana  1>o3,^3°  £,  NOVIKOV,  PYaTETsEIY-SKAPIRO  and 
Suir/u-EVICh  in  19o4tJ-27  GEL 1  FAND  and  FUKS  in  19o7,^3®  HIKLOS  and  SII.'AY  in 
lirbT,1^  GINDIKIN  and  VIIiBERG  in  1567, 11+0  ana  DGBRUShlii  and  MIKLOS  in 
lyb7.-^l  It  should  be  noted,  though,  that  few  of  the  mathematicians  wno 
signed  tne  VOL'PIN  protest  letter  continued  to  dissent  after  his  release. 
Only  thirteen  of  the  ninety-five  who  signed  the  protest  letter  (BhAFARE- 
PONOI-tAREV,  PY aTETsKI Y -SH ft PIRO ,  ShIKhANOVICh,  VIL ' YaHs ,  and  VINBERG )  con¬ 
tinued  to  dissent,  an  indication  that  the  majority  of  the  mathematicians 
had  supported  VOL 'PIN  not  as  a  dissident  but  as  a  fellow  matnematician. 

Another  interesting  relationship  among  dissident  mathematicians  was 
displayed  by  the  event g  surrounding  VINBERG's  aoctoral  dissertation  de¬ 
fense  in  April  1977 VINBERG's  dissertation  had  been  ignored  by  the 
appropriate  academic  authorities  for  several  years,  out  of  spite  towards 
VINBERG's  dissident  activities,  and  VINBERG  finally  sent  his  dissertation 
abroad  to  get  an  unbiased  evaluation.  When  his  defense  was  finally  sched¬ 
uled,  fellow  dissidents  ARNOL'D  and  S.  NOVIKOV  tried  to  attend  the  process 
but  were  removed  nominally  because  they  were  not  on  the  dissertation  com¬ 
mittee.  One  member  of  the  committee,  MANIN,  supported  VINBERG's  disserta¬ 
tion,  but  the  other  members  refused  to  award  VINBERG  his  doctorate  for  his 
alleged  dissident  act  of  sending  the  dissertation  abroad. 

In  the  field  of  chemistry  there  are  a  few  interesting  relationships  cen¬ 
tered  around  Academician  KNUNYaNTs,  who  had  protested  the  introduction  of 
new  articles  in  the  Soviet  Criminal  Code  against  dissidents  in  1966  and 
had  suDrorted  draft  legislation  for  the  elimination  of  censorship  in  1967 . 
KNUNYaNTs  had  co-authored  a  paper  with  ROKhLIN  in  1967. 143  ROKhLIN  had 
spoken  out  against  the  Soviet  invasion  of  Czechoslovakia  in  1966,  and  when 
it  was  time  for  his  re-election  as  Senior  Scientific  Associate  at  his  ins¬ 
titute  in,  !*ay  1969,  the  director  of  the  institute  asked  that  he  not  be  re¬ 


In  spite  of  this,  he  was  re-elected.  KNUNYaNTs  had  also  co¬ 
authored  in  1967  with  ARONOV,^-43  who  had  abstained  from  voting  at  a  meet¬ 
ing  in  support  of  the  Soviet  occupation  of  Czechoslovakia  and  was  releas¬ 
ed  at  the  expiration  of  his  Moscow  residence  permit.  ®  In  1976  ARONOV 
signed  a  letter  of  support  for  TVERDOKhLEBOV  and  in  1977  signed  a  letter 
of  support  for  Ginzburg.  4 '  Two  other  chemists  were  also  co-authors  in 
1967:  BOChVAR.,who  had  protested  VOL'PIN's  hospitalization  in  i960,  and 
BAGATUR'YaNTs,  °  who  admitted  to  copying  "Samizdat"  he  received  from  BUR- 
MISTROVICh  in  1967-08  at  the  latter's  trial  in  1969,  and  who  promised  nev¬ 
er  to. deal  with  "Samizdat"  again  in  the  future. ^4^ 

In  the  field  of  physics,  GINZBURG,  who  had  protested  the  change  in  tne 
Soviet  Criminal  Code  in  1966,  and  FAYN,  who  participated  in  AZBEL's  sci¬ 
entific  seminars  in  1975  and  had  organized  the  Jewish  cultural  symposium 
in  1976,  co-authored  articles  in  1957  and  1960.^-56  SOKOLOV  and  KhRIPiA)- 
VlCh,  both  of  whom  signed  the  letter  protesting  the  Galanskov-Ginzburg 
trial,  co-authored  an  article  on  nuclear  physics  in  1968, 151  LEVIN,  wno 
signed  the  Galanskov-Ginzburg  protest  letter  in  1966  and,  in  197b,  along 
with  SAKhAROV  supported  TVERDOKhLEBOV ' 3  and  ShUSTEE's  scientific  work, ^-5*? 
co-authored  an  article  in  19I+U  with  teacher,  LEONTOVICh.^33  LEONTOVICh 
has  himself  supported  a  number  of  dissidents,  including  MEDVEDEV,  PIMENOV, 


C-inzburg  and  3ukovskiy,  „  ;e  1966.15^  SAKhAROV  and  ZEL'EOVICh  co-auth¬ 
ored  a  paper  on.  nuclear  physics  in  1957;^5  ZEL'DOVICh  has  not  appeared 
in  any  dissident  contexts  since  i960. 

Other  noteworthy  professional  ties  between  dissident  scientists  indu¬ 
ed:  B HANOVER  and  TsINOBER,  both  Jews  who  wanted  to  emigrate  ( BRAN OVER  in 
1972  did  so),  co-autnored  in  1965 ;15o  TVERDQKhLEBOV  and  MANDEL'TsVEYG, 
the  latter  of  whom  emigrated  to  Israel  in  1973  after  protesting  a  full 
year,  co-author:d  in  19ol;157  KhRIPLOVICE  and  Okun',  the  latter  of  whom 
gave  TVEI- 1  OKhLEBCV  research  assistance  in  1967^53  and  in  1978  was  ques¬ 
tioned  to  ascertain  that  he  was  not  going  to  support  ORLOV, 159  co-auth- 
ored  in  1907 ;i60  and  KALLISTRATOVA  and  GURVICh,  both  of  whom  signed  Ga- 
lanskov-Ginzburg  protest  letters  in  1966,  co-authored  an  article  in  the 
year  1963.161  There  are,  likewise,  strange  bedfellows  found  in  this  type 
of  investigation.  One  of  the  oddest  was  the  association  of  ZASLAVSKIY 
and  Sagdeyev,  who  co-authored  an  article  in  1961.162  ZASLAVSKIY  had  sign¬ 
ed  one  of  the  1968  protest  letters  on  the  Galanskov-Ginzburg  trial,  and 
Sagdeyev  was  known  for  his  comment  on  the  best  way  to  deal  with  scientists 
who  had  signed  that  very  letter:  "Get  rid  of  them  all. "163 

KOLMOGOROV  and  TURChlN  worked  together  on  what  is  know  in  parapsychol¬ 
ogy  circles  as  the  "Great  Telepathy  Controversy. "l*3^  The  newspaper  Liter- 
aturnaya  gazeta  sponsored  a  telepathy  experiment  in  1968 ,  for  wnicn  it  re¬ 
cruited  scientists  as  judges  and  referees.  KOLMOGOROV  was  one  of  the 
three  academicians  selected  to  evaluate  the  results  of  the  experiment,  and 
TURChlN  was  named  head  of  a  special  supervisory  committee  of  ten  scien¬ 
tists  and  engineers  which  was  to  monitor  the  experiment.  The ‘experiment 
was  held  between  10  and  13  May  1968  in  Moscow  and  Kerch  and  no  evidence 
was  found  to  support  the  existence  of  telepathy.  TURChlN,  incidentally, 
wrote  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  newspaper  soon  after  this  experiment 
to  protest  the  newspaper's  criticism  of  Solzhenitsyn,  and  he  stated  that 
he  refused  to  write  for  the  paper  or  subscribe  to  it  until  tne  present  edi¬ 
tor  was  removed. l6p 

On  the  other  side  of  the  parapsychology  credibility  line  was  NAUMOV, 
who  worked  together  with  REGEL'SON  at  the  All-Union  Scientific  Research 
Institute  of  Medical  Instruments  and  Equipment  from  1972  to  197 •*,  inves¬ 
tigating  the  biophysical  basis  for  acupuncture  and  biological  fields. 1°° 
NAUMOV  was  an  amateur  parapsychologist  and  lecturer,  who  was  sentenced  to 
two  years  confinement  in  1971*  for  accepting  money  for  his  lectures. 1°T 
It  could  also  be  added  that  A.  ShTERN  worked  in  an  official,  secret  para¬ 
psychology  laboratory  in  Novosibirsk  in  the  late  1960's,  researcning  the 
physical  basis  of  psychic  energy. 166 

Finally,  in  discussing  professional  relationships  among  dissidents, 
one  tends  to  lose  sight  of  the  more  frequent  phenomenon  of  dissidents  hav¬ 
ing  professional  relationships  with  non-dissidents.  Do  the  dissidents  in¬ 
fluence  their  colleagues  in  any  way?  Does  the  respect  a  scientist  has 
for  another  stop  at  the  latter's  scientific  schievements,  or  does  it  3pill 
over  to  his  other  activities?  One  can  cite  the  tremendous  achievements  of 
SAKhAROV  in  the  field  of  controlled  thermonuclear  fusion,  one  of  the  most 
highly  researched  and  financed  non-military  Soviet  science  projects.  SAKh¬ 
AROV  and  TAMM  developed  the  theoretical  basis  for  the  entire  field  in  the 
year  1950. 1°9  Do  the  researchers  in  tnis  field  hold  any  special  regard 

for  their  scientific  "benefactors,”  or  have  they  been  able  to  isolate 
SAKhAF.OV  the  physicist  from  SAKhAROV  the  dissident.  KAPITsA  is  another 
example  of  a  very  influential  dissident  scientist.  Has  he  influenced 
younger  scientists  in  any  way,  particularly  vhen  they  realize  that  he 
has  been  able  to  avoid  the  worst  persecutions  because  of  his  scientific 
prestige?  Will  the  younger  scientists  wait  until  they  have  made  signif¬ 
icant  scientific  contributions  before  they  dissent?  These  are  questions 
that  cannot  be  answered  in  this  paper  but  unquestionably  are  of  prime 
importance  in  determining  the  extent  and  future  of  dissidence  in  the 
scientific  community. 

5.  Social-elite  Groups 

A  large  number  of  scientists  about  whom  biographicaLl  information  could 
be  found  come  from  families  that  could  be  considered  as  belonging  to  the 
Soviet  "elite,"  whether  in  the  field  of  culture,  politics  or  science. 

This  sociological  phenomenon  will  be  discussed  in  this  section. 

A.  Cultural  Elite 

Seven  dissident  scientists  can  be  identified  as  having  been  born  into 
families  belonging  to  the  cultural  elite,  perhaps  the  most  famous  of  whom 
was  VOL'PIN' s  father,  the  poet  Sergey  Esenin.  Although  Esenin  apparently 
spent  little  more  time  with  VOL 'PIN's  mother,  Nadezhda  Vol'pin,  than  was 
necessary  to  create  the  future  dissident  scientist, 170  ana,  in  fact,  died 
the  same  year  VOL'PIN  was  born,  the  prestige  of  having  such  a  famous  fa¬ 
ther  must  have  had  some  bearing  on  VOL'PIN.  TVERDOKhLEBOV  was  also 
brought  up  among  the  cultural  elite.  His  natural  father,  Nikolay  Ye. 
Tverdokhlebov,  was  chief  of  the  Main  Administration  on  Art  of  the  Minis¬ 
try  of  Culture  in  1953-51*  and  Deputy  Minister  of  Culture  in  195^-55.171 
TVERDOKhT.F.BOV ' s  step-father,  and  ZAK's  father,  Boris  G.  Zaks,  was  on  the 
editorial  board  of  the  literary  Journal  Hovyy  mir  from  the  time  the  iio- 
eral  poet  Tvardovskiy  assumed  the  position  of  editor  until  1966;172  in 
1977,  moreover,  he  signed  a  protest  letter  on  tne  arrest  of  writer  Ginz¬ 
burg.  ^-7  3 

Mathematician  GASTEV's  father,  Aleksey  K.  Gastev,  was  a  writer  and 
political  activist  who  founded  the  Central  Institute  of  Labor  in  1920 
and  is  considered  one  of  the  founders  of  Soviet  proletarian  litera¬ 
ture.  17 **  Gastev  was  a  revolutionary  and  member  of  the  Russian  Social 
Democrat  Workers'  Party  from  1901  to  1908,  He  was  later  arrested  and 
shot  during  the  Stalinist  purges  of  the  late  1930' s.  Chemist  BELOTs- 
ERKQVSKIY’s  father.  Vladimar  N.  Bill'-Belotserkovskiy  was  also  a  writer 
and  revolutionary. 175  He  worked  in  the  United  States  for  seven  years 
prior  to  the  Russian  Revolution  but  returned  in  time  to  participate  in 
it.  Bill'-Belotserkovskiy  is  the  author  of  the  famous  Soviet  play  about 


the  Civil  War,  "Shtorm,"  (The  Storm),  which  is  recognized  as  having  set 
the  model  for  the  "Soviet"  play. 

Biologist  KOSTERINA ' s  father,  Aleksey  Ye.  Kosterin,  was  a  popular 
writer,  an  old  Bolshevik,  and  later  dissident,  who  was  known  for  his 
support  of  national  minorities  in  the  USSR.iTo  During  the  Civil  War,  he 
was  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  partisan  movement  in  the  North  Caucasus  and 
wrote  for  the  Bolshevik  press.  He  published  a  great  deal  in  the  1920's 
but  little  in  the  1930's.  He  was  arrested  in  May  1938,  and  spent  the  next 
seventeen  years  in  prison  camps  and  exile.  When  he  finally  returned  to 
writing  he  was  able  to  publish  just  a  few  works;  most  of  his  writing  cir¬ 
culated  in  "samizdat."  Less  than  two  weeks  prior  to  his  death  in  1988 
he  was  secretly  removed  from  the  Union  of  Soviet  Writers;  just  three 
weeks,  prior  to  his  death  he  quit  the  Communist  Party  in  protest  of  the 
Soviet  occupation  of  Czechoslovakia. 

Mathematician  GPABAR '  is  presumably  the  son  of  the  Russian  impression¬ 
ist  painter  and  art  historian  Igor'  E.  Grabar'.  Grabar'  was  an  academi¬ 
cian  of  both  the  Academies  of  Sciences  and  of  Arts  of  the  USSR.  He  head¬ 
ed  the  Tret 'yakovskiy  Gallery  from  1913-25,  and  was  instrumental  in  es¬ 
tablishing  workshops  to  restore  works  of  art  in  the  Soviet  Union  after 
the  revolution.  Grabar'  was  also  a  professor  at  Moscow  State  University 
and  was  awarded  tvo  Orders  of  Lenin.  Several  of  Grabar' s  paintings  were 
in  the  collection  of  one  M.  I.  Grabar'  of  Moscow,  presumably  Grabar' s 
son. ITT 

B.  Military-political  Elite 

There  are  at  .'east  eight  dissident  scientists  whose  families  belonged 
to  the  military  or  political  elite.  The  most  significant  one  was  LITVI¬ 
NOV'S  grandfather,  M.  M.  Litvinov,  Stalin's  foreign  minister  prior  to  WW 
II  and  ambassador  to  the  United  States  during  the  war;  his  grandmother 
was  Britisn.^78  LITVINOV's  privileged  status  in  Soviet  society  was,  in 
fact,  alluded  to  in  a  bitter  letter  sent  to  him  by  "an  ordinary  Soviet 
woman,"  who  was  reacting  to  LITVINOV's  statement  on  KGB  harrassment  wnich 
was  broadcast  by  Western  Russian-language  radio  stations  in  late  19o7. 
While  her  reaction  may  not  be  completely  accurate,  it  might  be  a  common 
(mis)perception  shared  by  many  Soviets  on  the  children  of  the  elite.  The 
woman  described  LITVINOV  as  one 

to  whom  tne  Soviet  power  has  given  everything,  for 
whom  from  infancy  all  roads  have  been  open,... who 
(has)  always  been  able  to  go  wherever  (he)  wanted, 
who  could  choose  whatever  university  (he)  liked, 
who  (nas)  always  enjoyed  material  security,  who 
(was)  given  an  apartment  inside  Sadovoye  Kol'tso.. 
who  (has)  made  a  habit  of  capitalizing  on  (his) 
forefathers'  services  and  all  for  nothing,  taking 
all  the  rood  things  of  life  as  (his)  due. 179 
This  view  is  probably  shared  by  Soviet  authorities,  altnough  it  undouotea- 
ly  raises  unpleasant  questions  regarding  their  own  children's  status. 

Other  dissident  scientists  from  the  military-political  elite  were 
MEDVEDEV,  whose  father  was  a  Soviet  Marxist  philosopher  and  a  aeaber  of 
the  F.ed  Army,  who  taught  at  the  Military  Political  Academy  and  Leningrad 
State  University ;  3.80  TVERDOKhLEBOV ,  whose  father  was  also  a  member  of  tne 
State  Committee  for  . national  and  Technical  Education  collegium  in  19o2  . 
and  had  served  as  the  Soviet  ambassador  to  Bonn  at  some  point; Id  AGUR- 

SKIY,  whose  father  was  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Communist  Party  of  tne 
United  States  prior  to  coming  to  the  USSR;^°2  AL'BEEKhT,  wnose  father 

was  an  old  Bolshevik,  who  was  exiled  by  the  czarist  police  for  distribut¬ 
ing  "samizdat”  and  for  belonging  to  the  Russian  Social  Democrat  Workers' 
Party;  1^3  GENKIN,  whose  father  vas  also  an  old  Bolshevik;^1*  KISLINA, 
whose  father  was  apparently  a  former  political  big-wig  who  as  of  1969 
was  on  pension  and  lived  in  the  same  apartment  building  as  did  Brezhnev; 135 
and  LOZANSKAYa,  whose  father  was  a  senior  Soviet  general  stationed  in  Mos¬ 
cow  who  had  refused  to  help  her  emigrate  to  be  with  her  husband  in  the 
United  States. 1S6 


C.  Scientific  Elite 

Most  of  the  scientists  in  this  study  who  have  come  from  elite  families 
have  come  from  the  scientific  elite:  SAKhAROV,  LEONTOVICh,  both  TURChIN's, 
ENETsKIY,  LAND A,  KELDYSh,  and  I^TVINOV  are  all  from  tne  scientific  elite. 

The  VELIKANOV's  are  children  of  Academician  and  hydrologist  Mikhail  A. 
Velikanov  (1879-196U) ,  who  had  received  the  Order  of  Lenin  and  was  head 
of  the  Department  of  the  Physics  of  River-Bed  Processes  at  Moscow  State 
University. 187  SAKhAROV' s  father  was  physicist  Dmitriy  Sakharov,  autnor 
of  a  physics  textbook  and  professor  at  the  Lenin  Pedagogical  Institute .1® 6 
LEONTOVICh 's  father,  Aleksandr  V.  Leontovich  (1869-19^3),  was  a  noted  phy¬ 
siologist,  169  and  FRANK-KAMENETsKIY' s  father  was  presumably  D.  A.  Frank- 
Kamenetskiy,  the  physicist  who  worked  with  ZEL'DOVICh  in  the  19h0's  on  a 
flame  development  theory. 190 

Physicist  BOChVAR 's  father  was  metals  specialist  and  academician  Andrey 
A.  Bochvar,  who  received  the  Order  of  Lenin,  a  Stalin  Prize,  hero  of  tne 
Soviet  Union,  and  was  a  deputy  to  the  RSFSR  Supreme  Soviet  in  1955 »  1959 » 
and  1963. J-91  At  one  time  Bochvar  headed  a  research  institute  in  Lenin¬ 
grad.  Mathematician  S.  P.  NOVIKOV  is  the  son  of  mathematicians  Academi¬ 
cian  ?.  S.  NOVIKOV  and  L.  V.  KELDSh,  the  sister  of  former  Academy  of  Sci¬ 
ences  President  M,  V.  Keldysh. 192  KELDYSh' s  father  was  an  Academician 
himself,  a  professor  at  the  Military  Engineering  Academy  in  Moscow,  a 
Ma J or-General  in  the  Encineerine-Technicai  Services,  and  a  Party  mem¬ 
ber.  193 

Mathematician  V.  ?.  TURChIN  and  chemist  K.  F.  TURChIN  are  presumably 
tne  sons  of  agro-chemist  and  professor  Fedor  V.  Turchin  (l69o-19b0),  a 
recognized  world-authority  on  nitrogen  fertilizers. 19**  LITVINOV'S  fataer, 
;■!.  M.  Litvinov,  was  a  physicist  and  senior  engineer  at  a  design  oureau, 
and  nis  motner,  F.  ?.  Yasinovskaya,  was  a  Senior  Scientific  Associate  at 


che  Institute  of  Cardiology. The  VUITsZL  brothers'  mother,  Ye.  S. 

Ventsel,  was  a  mathematics  Drofessor  at  the  Military  Air  Acadenv  lirenl  Zhuk¬ 

ovskiy,  as  well  as  a  writer j-'0  MAHKOV's  father  was  the  matnenatician  A. 

A.  Markov  (lo 56-1922)  and  LAUDA' s  x'ather  was  a  professor  and  head  of 
tue  School  of  Pathological  Anatomy  of  the  Saratov  Veterinary  Institute,-1--*3 

6.  Conclusions 

What  conclusions  can  he  reached  on  the  involvement  of  Soviet  dissi¬ 
dent  scientists  in  groups?  First,  scientists  have  played  a  major  role 
in  dissident  groups,  particularly  human  rights  groups  and  ethnic  groups. 
Scientists  have  not,  however,  been  particularly  active  in  che  criminal/ 
revolutionary  groups,  possibly  out  of  concern  for  their  careers  or  out  of 
a  basic  loyalty  to  the  Soviet  system.  The  professional  groups  among  sci¬ 
entists  are  significant  in  that  they  suggest  that  there  mignt  be  numerous 
other  prospective  dissident  scientists  among  tne  co-workers  of  aaown  dis¬ 
sidents.  Finally,  that  fact  that  a  number  of  the  dissident  scientists 
were  from  the  Soviet  elite  suggests  that  Soviet  authorities  have  lost  the 
loyalty  and  support  of  a  group  that  should  be  among  the  most  loyal  to  the 
regime,  as  it  enjoys  its  privileges  at  the  pleasure  of  the  authorities. 



1.  Theoretical  Framework 

In  this  chapter,  information  on  the  5o5  scientists  found  in  the  "sam¬ 
izdat"  sources  who  have  dissented,  requested  emigration,  or  otherwise  in¬ 
curred  the  wrath  of  the  authorities  is  presented  in  tabular  form  and  ana¬ 
lyzed.  Given  the  closed  nature  of  Soviet  society,  the  information  avail¬ 
able  on  scientists,  particularly  dissident  scientists,  is  relatively 

sparse;  accordingly,  certain  variables  have  been  chosen  which  conceivably 
might  be  relevant  to  the  causes  of  dissidence  for  given  scientists,  and 
data  which  pertains  to  these  variables  has  been  collected.  Obviously, 
since  an  equal  sample  of  non-dissident  scientists  has  not  been  included, * 
a  comparison  cannot  be  drawn  between  the  dissident  and  non-dissident  sci¬ 
entists  to  determine  what  variables  do,  in  fact,  indicate  a  proclivity  to¬ 
wards  dissidence.  Nor  has  the  hypothesis  behind  the  selection  of  eacn 
variable  (as  relevant  to  understanding  the  causes  of  dissent)  been  experi¬ 
mentally  tested  by  psychological  or  sociological  means;  the  hypotheses  are 
unproven  and  untested.  What  this  collection  of  data  does  provide,  howev¬ 
er,  are  experiences  and  personal  backgrounds  among  scientists  in  the  dis¬ 
sident  scientist  community.  Correlations  drawn  from  this  data  suggest 
factors  which  might  have  led  to  or  impacted  on  the  scientists'  dissidence. 
It  might  even  be  suggested  that?  these  correlations  could  be  used  to  pre¬ 
dict  the  prospects  of  dissidence  among  scientists  in  the  future. 

The  variables  selected  were:  date  of  birth,  ethnic  origin,  religion, 
educational  level,  job  title,  place  of  work,  field  of  science,  Party  af¬ 
filiation,  relationship  to  the  purges  (self  or  family  member),  imprison¬ 
ment  and  hospitalization,  dates  of  first  and  last  dissident  act,  and  city 
of  residence.  A  comprehensive  description  of  these  variables  follow  in 
the  next  few  pages;  this  should  make  the  conceptual  model  clear  and  en¬ 
able  the  ensuing  analysis  to  proceed  with  little  further  methodological 

The  "date  of  birth"  variable  provides  the  following  information:  it 
determines  the  historico-political  environment  in  which  the  scientist 
grew  up  and  worked,  his  "life  experience,"  whether  he  was  touched  by  the 
Russian  Revolution,  Stalinist  Purges,  World  War  II,  the  "Thaw"  of  de- 
Stalinization  after  the  20th  Party  Congress,  the  re-Stalinization  by  Brez- 
nev,  etc;  secondly,  the  "date  of  birth"  data,  in  combination  with  the 
"year  of  first  dissent"  data,  gives  the  researcher  the  age  of  the  scien¬ 
tist  when  he  first  dissented.  The  age  of  the  scientist,  as  well  as  the 
era  in  wnich  he  grew  up,  might  have  a  bearing  on  his  decision  to  dissent. 

The  choice  of  "ethnic  origin"  as  a  variable  rests  on  the  assumption 
that  ethnic  discrimination  plays  a  role  in  causing  a  person  to  dissent, 
particularly  if  the  discrimination  is  supported  by  the  authorities,  as 
it  is  in  the  Soviet  Union.  This  variable  is  meaningful  not  only  to  sug¬ 
gest  a  cause  of  dissidence  but  also  to  determine  the  participation  in 

dissident  activities  of  particular  ethnic  minorities,  such  as  Jews,  Ar¬ 
menians,  Crimean  Tatars,  Lithuanians,  etc. 

The  "religion"  variable  was  included  because  it  could  be  assumed  that 
Soviet  policies  of  religious  persecution  would  cause  a  religious  scien¬ 
tist  to  dissent.  This  variable  might  also  show  a  degree  of  personal  com¬ 
mitment  and  the  willingness  to  suffer,  both  necessary  for  a  dissenter, 
for  the  religious  scientist  might  be  under  attach  from  both  fellow  scien¬ 
tists,  who  would  be  guided  by  the  materialistic  and  rationalistic  nature 
of  science,  and  the  authorities,  who  would  be  supported  by  the  Party's 
anti-religious  -'olicies.  Another  point  is  that  Jew  as  an  ethnic  category 
is  separate  fro.  Judaism  as  a  religion;  it  is  by  no  means  a  certainty 
that  a  Soviet  Jew,  even  one  requesting  emigration,  is  a  religious  be¬ 

The  "level  of  education"  variable,  one  of  the  variables  which  indicates 
at  what  stage  in  the  scientist's  professional  career  he  became  a  dissident, 
might  snow  whether  the  level  of  education  of  a  scientist  had  a  bearing  on 
his  dissidence,  whether  the  higher  the  level  of  education,  with  its  atten¬ 
dant  higher  status  and  greater  perquisites,  the  greater  the  motivation  to 
become  (or  not  become)  a  dissident.  The  "job  title"  variable  is  the 
other  variable  which  indicates  the  scientist's  professional  level.  This 
variable  is  used  to  determine  whether  the  type  of  job  the  scientist  held 
had  a  bearing  on  his  dissidence. 

The  "place  of  work"  variable  provides  data  on  the  subordination  of  the 
institute  in  which  the  dissident  scientist  worked,  for  the  purpose  of 
determining  in  which  admisistrative  environment  (Academy  of  Sciences, 
All-Union  Ministry,  Republican  Ministry,  etc.)  the  greatest  number  of 
dissident  scientists  are  found.  The  assumption  is  made  that  institutional 
subordination  does  play  a  role  in  causing  dissidence;  the  reasons  mignt 
be  more  academic  freedom  in  one  administrative  environment  than  in  another, 
increased  social  pressure  to  conform,  or  heightened  security  measures  ta¬ 
ken  with  respect  to  employees.  The  data  collected  for  this  variable  will 
indicate  m  which  institutes  there  are  significantly  large  numbers  of  dis¬ 
sident  scientists.  Why  these  institutes  have  such  large  numbers  is  open 
to  speculation;  in  fact,  it  could  be  reasonably  argued  that,  rather  than 
creating  or  causing  dissidents,  these  institutes  merely  attracted  them. 
Whatever  the  reasons,  these  institutes  vill  be  singled  out. 

The  "field  of  science”  variable  indicates  what  field  of  science  has 
attracted,  or  caused,  the  greatest  number  of  dissident  scientists.  Wheta- 
er  a  field  of  science  could  "cause"  dissidence  is  unlikely,  but  the  sci¬ 
entist's  choice  of  a  particular  field  of  science  could  indicate  a  "mind¬ 
set,"  which  itself  might  be  the  "cause"  of  dissidence. 

The  "Party  membership"  variable  indicates  the  number  of  Komsomol, 
Communist  Party,  Marxist,  and  non-Party  scientists  within  the  dissident 
scientist  community.  This  data  might  suggest  a  relationship  between  po¬ 
litical  orientation  and  dissidence.  A  methodological  problem  involved 
with  the  collection  of  data  for  this  variable  must  be  pointed  out,  par¬ 
ticularly  if  one  is  interested  in  extrapolating  the  total  number  of  sci¬ 
entists  involved  in  such  activities  from  the  information  available.  Data 
on  Party  membership  was  drawn  almost  exclusively  from  information  on 


on  expulsions  from  the  Party.  It  cannot  be  ascertained,  however,  if  all 
dissident  scientists  who  were  Party  members  were  expelled  for  their  ais- 
sidence  or  if  all  the  expulsions  were  brought  to  the  attention  of  those 
individuals  who  were  assembling  the  various  "samizdat"  documents,  Inus, 
the  low  numbers  of  Party  members  in  this  sample  cannot  be  interpreted  as 
a  low  number  of  Party  members  among  dissident  scientists  with  absolute 

The  "Purge"  variable  identifies  whether  the  dissident  had  a  direct  or 
indirect  personal  contact  with  the  Stalinist  purges,  a  factor  wnicn  would 
conceivably  affect  his  loyalty  to  the  Soviet  regime,  particular  after 
Khrushchev's  ouster  with  the  re-Stalinization  of  Soviet  society.  Infor- 
.nation  has  been  collected  on  the  family  background  of  the  dissident  sci¬ 
entists  to  determine  if  their  fathers,  mothers,  siblings  or  they  them¬ 
selves  had  been  victims  of  the  purges. 

The  "prison"  and  "hospitalization"  variables  show  trends  in  the  arrests 
and  confinements  of  dissident  scientists,  trends  which  would  presumably 
be  considered  by  prospective  dissident  scientists  to  determine  the  risk 
involved  in  an  act  of  dissent.  When  arrests  and  confinements  were  down, 
tne  scientist  would  presumably  be  less  inhibited  to  dissent.  It  is  left 
to  the  subsequent  studies  to  compare  the  sentences  given  the  scientists 
witn  those  sentences  given  non-scientist  dissidents  to  see  whether  the 
scientists  were  given  preferential  treatment.  This  woula  be  a  highly 
complex  comparison,  though,  since  one  would  have  to  consider  different 
courts,  different  crimes,  and  different  political  atmospheres. 

The  "year  of  first  dissent"  Variable  indicates  the  number  of  new  dis¬ 
sidents  emerging  each  year  from  tne  scientific  community  and  provides 
data  used  to  chart  the  "progress"  of  dissidence  among  Soviet  scientists. 

To  determine  a  causal  relationship,  why  an  increase  or  decrease  in  the 
number  of  dissidents  between  certain  years,  one  must  refer  back  to  tne 
historical  events  of  the  given  years  for  clues,  and  the  historical  account 
of  dissidence  contained  in  Chapter  I  should  provide  the  necessary  back¬ 
ground.  As  mentioned  above,  this  variable  is  also  significant  in  tnat  it 
indicates  the  age  of  the  scientist  at  his  first  act  of  dissent. 

The  "year  of  latest  dissent"  variable  is  important  primarily  as  a  means 
to  determine  whether  the  dissident  was  active  through  a  particular  year 
or  whether  he  had  returned  to  normal,  non-political  life.  This  information 
is  used,  together  with  the  "year  of  first  dissent"  data,  to  show  the  number 
of  dissident  scientists  active  in  the  USSR  per  year.  The  assumption  is 
made  that  between  the  first  dissent  ana  the  latest  dissent  the  scientist 
could  be  classified  as  a  "dissident,"  whether  there  is  evidence  that  ne 
participated  in  a  dissident  activity  in  each  year  or  not. 

The  "city  of  residence"  variable  consists  of  the  name  of  the  city  in 
vhicii  the  scientist  lived  at  the  time  of  his  first  dissidence  or  during  the 
greater  part  of  his  dissident  activity,  excluding  exile  or  prison.  I is 
significance  is  that  residence  in  certain  cities  might  lead  to  a  greater 
proclivity  to  dissent  for  reasons  of,  conceivably,  greater  access  to  "sam¬ 
izdat"  and  the  dissident  community.  This  variable  also  includes  informa¬ 
tion  on  emigrations  and  defections,  and  this  information  will  be  used  to 
chart  trends  in  the  number  of  dissident  scientists  leaving  the  USSR  be¬ 
tween  certain  years. 


2 .  Data 

The  purpose  for  the  data  contained  in  the  following  biographical  table 
can  be  found  in  tne  notes  for  Chapter  III,  pp,  137-163  under  the  name  of 
the  scientist. 



Place  of  Work 














Crimean  Tatar 





























Russian  Orthodox 








Judas im 















Bapt  Baptist 








F  Father 



B  Brother 



Y  Self 





rield  of  Science 






















Moscow  Physico-fech 









































P lac e  of  work 

Job  Title  (cont.) 










Scientific  Research  Inst. 












A-u  Institute  of  Scientific 
and  Technical  Information 



GrSt  Graduate  Student 

DepC  Department  Caief 

dDeC  Deputy  Department  Chief 

D_  Doctor  (of) 

E_  Candidate  (of) 

?M  Physico-Mathematical  Sciences 
BS  Biological  Sciences 

GS  Geological  Sciences 

K S  Chemical  Sciences 

TS  Technical  Sciences 
MS  Medical  Sciences 
Ph  Philosophical  Sciences 
PS  Pedagogical  Sciences 
Dip  University  degree  only 

City  of  Residence 
Em  Emigrated 

De  Defected 

hovosioir  Novosibirsk 

Job  Title 




Corresponding  member 


Corresponding  member  of  the 
Ukrainian  Academy 






Senior  Scientific  Assoc,. 


Junior  Scientific  Assoc. 




Lab  Chief 








Group  Chief 





Jo  a*T3 

AiXiiiOV.  Yu 


JO  hlO 






Em*  197 / 

Em*  1977 














■  |i  |  [I  ■ 





r-  O  Oi  o 

vn  r-  r-  o 

1  1  1  •»  1 

vr>  os  cy  cv  co  fn 

c^n  so  -nt  i>  o  r- 


!h  >-i 



jc  PT3TI 


Last  Place 
of  Work 

Inst  of  Atomii 

Inst  of  Uiol. 
of  Developmen 

Inst  of  Zool. 
Inst  of  Elem 
Organic  Comp. 
Computer  Cent 
Lat.  State  U 

Inst  of  Solirl 
State  Physics 

Kiev  Tech  Ins 
of  Light  Ind. 

Mosc  Inst  of 
Agric.  Engin. 

SRI  of  Comm, 
on  Inventions 

®ItTx  qof 


IMMPI  ■— 

*0  ,5 

a  -fj 

Hj  < 


»  5  5  S  _  _  . 

©  ©  ©©>55 

►"3  Tj  l-j)  ©  ©  © 

1-3  1-31-3 

jo  »w 

g>  <o  »-  cv  c-  co  or  oo 

Or-  O  T—  CO  ITS  CO  CO 

0^  QN  Q\  QN  Qs  O'*  O'*  O 


JO  .  •  M  .  . — . 

O  >  G  TO  JO  > 

•H  O  O  C  i!  O 

>  G  JO  E  TO  C  JO  -H  3 

©  to  o  e  ©  a  g  o  3  « 

©  «S  5  *-1  >  Cs,  j*  o  *h  03 

G  g  2  m  ©3  >  a  3 

TO  TO  ©  0  2  g  2  H>  M  ©33 

G  S  J*  .G  >  3  —  <©  -  <h 

«  3  CO  g  «  JO  B  c  q  3  |H  ©  r)  H  g  • 

B  H  U  f»  H  g  TO©  tJ-G  -H  M  l-H 

>  ,*  «t  -h  0  ©  ©  v.  -h  a  g  ©  m 

©  t/JC©  >3  ©  3  «H  C  >H  O  £  C  -c-t 

•4  jh  cH  0  jo©  S  0  yj  3  p»  c  o 

■D  '*OBG3  0r-t5-‘.Gw  OT  C-4  *H  JG 

•  _  _  M  -H  00  H  TO  G  C  '  -  to  3  3  -H  tH  «  :0  -  -"  © 

J3  3  03  >  G  •>  »3  G  r.  SJ  «*  C  «H  G  B  !g  G  3  ch 

3  *5  2  >  >n  C  g  2  >  »  3  H  •>  B  Q  O  M  •»  O  3  -H 

«  *0  Q  3  M  M  >-t  B  •>  3  >  OO  -3  M  3  >n  23  5 

•g  >  3  3  2  3  _  3  •»  »•*  3  W  CO  M  «  H  H  J 

3  O  «  J3O0'4«3  333  0»  «*  >T  3G 

3  3  3  3-  -  >H  3  3  rH  ■?  MM*o  O  >H  3  «  303^*00 

oj  3  33-3  3  3  M  3-1  «r  3  33"0  33  3  M  H  3  j->  3  3  S 

©  «e  3  “  3  3  3jo-«  S'ccc  *t-3  05  S  33*t-ji-h3s 

h  333  3  33  -j  !M  333  33  33  S  3  33330 

3  yj  >  3  «*^<t  <  «  <t  -<  -  <r'3  jdgrayatH 

*«  «T  •«»*•<  <s  333  -3  333  33  33  3  3  3  3  J  3w 



-  04 
s  r- 

O  O' 
y  r-  > 
CO  «  Q) 
O  S  -H 
2  4a 

3  3  ?  3 
o  o  o  o 
w  B  to  ca 



>  >  y 
®  <d  ca 


•H  3  3  3 

ca  o  o  o 
o  y  y  o 
>  ca  ca  ca 
o  .2  .g  .2 


s  r- 

O  O' 
y  e  *- 
ca  to  «• 

£2  Ji 




?  > 





©  © 




^  »-3 

jo  s-jug 

O  JH 


3  vj  . 

>  3  n 

•  ShS< 

3  J3  ^  ^  > 
H  O  =  P»  J 
i!a  3a  j 
j)  h  ><  a  a 

3333  3 

go  c 

i-e  § 

®  2 

—  a  ;»  « 

H  Od  H 

3  i-t  •s 

!M  iH 

Sh  y  Ch 

u  a  '»(  to 

G  r- 1  C 

»  s  a  <  a 
Jd  '9  >»  3d 

CD  3  <0  •>  O 

(H  33  H 

■«  JT  'O  «e 

-  .3  2  . 

3  >  3  Hd 

3  o  ch  3  ‘3 

3  0  3  3  3 

5  2  3  a  3 



a  > 


jo  Aid 


3  O'  5  £ 

O  o  o 

o  e  o  o 

U  m  IQ  Q 

O  Jj  |  ^  5 


c  r»  c- 

CNi  _  J-i  C'-C'- 

JC>?ep  O'  os 

OOOC>  r-  1—0 

O  <—  O  *H  P  >  >  O 

a«*ac>®  ••«••« 

s  ggg.Saajd 

2  3  5  5  3 

O  O  O  O  O 

O  CJ  o  o  o 

w2  «  w  W  03 

o  o  o  o  o 

iA«tOC3  OCO 
^•vO  O  O  P"0 
O  o  On  o\  o 



UCS  pid 

















c  c 

•H  O 

o  <u  p 

Q.  V 
(-(  -H  p 

as  a,  £ 

cn  -p 

c  oi 
n  -h  c 
I  c  o 
^  '1 

H  O-H 
-O  C  P 


i.  ^  a 
S<  c-1  |H 

<P  O  **"  t* 
o  CH  «h  -P 
+»  W  3 
a  H  *0 
C  <H  C  C 
M  O  05  M 

■P  O  C  •  • 

3  H  H 

®  -P  MOO 
oo  a  c  ®  c 

c  3  a  o 
b  n  ^ 

<u  _  •  <p  x: 

■p  3  o  o 

3  o  -p  o 
q,o  a-P  oi 
S  a  C  a  a 

o  o  o  c 

P  A  O  H  -j) 



jo  a^ia 















CO  C*r 











O'  O' 














— ^ 

3  3  3 
O  O  O 

id  O  O  O 

1  5  3  a  3 

,2.  £ 

3  0  O' 

0  3  t— 

SfH  CJ  - 
11^1  «  J 

£5  §13 

S-t  'U 
•H  co 
JQ  U 
>  5  3-H  tfl 

o  o  o  w  s 

©  O  ©  O  «H 

W  CO  W  >  C 

o  o  o  o  o 



jo  PT3TJ 

oa  io  jz  ta  ,-t 

co  oa  xi 

l>i?  3 

Ot  0*  3 


«  • 

X!  •  +>  .H 
+>  J3  C  O 
e  +>  -P  -h 
3  • 

'in  (<  M  O 

o  m  a  o  o 
o  a  -h 
-p  ft  -p  ta 

ggg  g£ 

nm  qor 















jo  aq.«CI 

§«  +j 
<m  a 


§  ,1  3  S  * 

M  -  C 

»  e 

-•s  3  >  > 

3  >  m  y  H 
M  O  i3  J 

2  m  3  y  * 

3  <  2  i  3 
a  a  o  a  a 

-  J  jj  >3  .S 

a  >-“ 


_■*  *o 

b  3 

a  3  e 
>»3»  H  2 

—  -H 

H  «•  •»  C 

H  g  <  s 

2  >  i» 

» 3  ® 

jj2>j  •> 

««  a)  M  £ 

-3  x  3  x 

«  S 

J  3  3  3  «. 

4”  o3 

I  js*a 

J  H  H  *H 

3  3  3  pa  rf 


C  Pd  O  -P 

h  I  8  £ 
•h  o  o  <r 
>  to  5  w 

c  ■  j 

•rl  U  *H  5 

C  O  CQ  O  D  3 

sag  stt 

f»  O 

Ct>  5  3 
•H  r-  O  O 

U  H  8  u 

a  53  3 

3  S'  3 

Or  O 
8  la  a 



m  o 
C-  3  Jrf  3 
O'  O  -  O 
t-  o  ^  o 

«  ;i  r  s 

5  £3333 

to  t—  n  a  r- 

1 £■  £•  'O  c-  r> 

O'  O  (Jn  0s  0s  0s 





O  -P 

a  3 

33  5 


S3  S3  •  => 

®  ®  a  m  ® 

+>  -p  O  E-<  -P 
e  s-p  4.  « 
-P  -P  <  Z  -P 
CO  Cfl  CO 

>  «-■  «  C 

0  3  0  >>  *H 

-p  o  Q  a 

g  a  is  as 

CO  3  M  M  « 

s>  o  c  ®  >  •  a  u 

I  ®  Tl  3  P  rl  S  ® 

ppm  ta-p  q,  t-i  pa 

>  0  tfl  C  «H  O  0,  o  >» 

p  c«s*c  <  a,  ®  o 

CO  M  O 

I  i  <H  W  tH  CM  -H  cm 

3  3^000  0  3  0 

O  O  -P  O  •  « 

o  a  m-p  3PSPSP 



IP'S  I 

•H  CD  TD 

c  ^  a 

•im  w 

jo  »W 



























O'  O' 






r~  r— 



* — 


,  ^  o  t- 

3  5  r*  H  '0 

o  o  o  ns  o 

sa  Q  a  <y  — 

■a  s3 

r  O  -h 
L3  >  C 

955.5ii=i,!j2S  3 

wj  »-4  -*  _«  H  ««• 

?  3 

o  o 

5  8  8  >  > 

ri  -9  5  «  « 

—  —  —  73  73 













<n  S-t 

°  ta°  & 



3  .£>  3  3 

ID  3  O 

3  +>  QJ  H  C  O 

<8  3  +>  P  -H  ID  3 

O-P-PcSOr-l-P  « 

^  n  j!-p  f+  co  >»  c 

K  *3  W  ®  <rl  I— I 

+3  3  •  3  +>  O 

h  3  CJi  3 

•  no  con  id  o 

>o  a  •  >  i-(  3  o 

+  >  h  ■+  cl,  <u  o  n  n 

as4d«hhe  o 

J3«  ID  «  PL,  3  M  S 

aim  qor 

:-.  3  5  3  3  3 

I  ©  a!  to  a>  v 

O  l-J  l-s  *-S  3  l"3 




iUSpTaejj  3  3  j;  O 

Aio  §  §  S  J 

3  2  -5=5 

'a  s* 

C  i-t 

fc.  ,U 

60  iH 

a  a 



>  U 

o  c 








g  g 

■s  £ 




o  o 
a  co 


s  jj 




3  a 

'U  ta 

o  o  S?  g  g  o 

Sh  S  «  3 

*  ,8«  Q  Q  O 

5  5 



























jo  a**a 



U  rH 
03  C  i-t 
t3  e  h 
h  ®  t( 

a>  Jd  '.a 
■~n  03 
<—(  •> 

»<  > 
a  !j 

cH  >£ 
M  ^  O 


-  w 

3  =>  J 

O  03 

vj  a  <h 
£6  bfl 

M  >  O 
3  93 
«  Q  3 


c  .40  3  •  -P 

«  •Sh  >  'J  g 

M  03  **  »«H  « 

z  >  **  o 

rz  »  ?>  •» 

2  4a  r*  *  ch  jq 
-  O  O  •Ji  3  ;» 

03  »-l  -H 
O  -pod 

•a  c  o 

®  c  m  <u 

*  5>  ^ 

O  h 

H  • 

>  i-d  03 

c  <  j;  a  Ji 

3)  3  J3 

»M  3  » 

**>  3  Z  <* 

>  OH'!  O 

O  >H  >  H  H 
3<  «  dHH 

If  5? 


3  tp  3  3 

o  sf  o  o 

O  "H  3  O  O 

a  a  JS  a  a 

3  J  S  5  5 

3  5 
O  a 
o  p  a 
5  >  63 

JU  53 

3  3  3  3 

o  o  o  o 

So  o  o  ^ 

a  a  a  a 


co  to  o  r** 

(S3'’ Sp  ) 






JC  pT3T£ 









i— I  a 

A  A  C  A 
O  <3  <B  -P 
<d  u  U  d 

£h  Od,ri  2 

o  3  n  o  n 
O  -P  O  <H  O 
■H  -H  C 
M  -P  -P  H  -P 
>»  a  a  a 
a  c  a  <n  a 
a,  i— i  h  o  h 

•  3 

e  a 
o  +-> 
■p  a 
«  -p 

m  » 


-P  Pi  o 

a  «  a 


Pi  • 
S  r-4 

a  o 
a  p. 
a  «h 
«  a  > 

Pi  3  <P 
a  -p  o 
a  -H 
r-t  -p  +j 

a  a  a 
"  C  G 

aim  qof 


£  3  3  £ 











JO  8^ 

JO  AlO  & 


r  e 

>»  V. 

3  5  3  £  C  W> 

o  O  O  «  C  Vi  c 

o  a  o  s  a  .a  -h 

3  a  cj  j  c  m  a 

3  3  3 
o  o  o 
>  o  o  o 
a>  to  sa  to 

3  3  3  3  £  «  ®  ^  -j  |  2 

:  8 

Qn  Q\  0s  0s  O  O 

Hath  1961  196b  Moscow 

1971  1975  Novosibir 

Math  196i  1966  Moscow 


jo  Ato 


c  £ 

3  -h  6a  3 

o  c  a  o 

?>  O  *-»  P  O 

o  «h  d  8 



C''  In 

3  c-  ojf- 
O  O'  C  O' 

O  T-  -H  «-  c; 

m  m  a  ••  u 

a  a  .3  a  a 



3  3  U  3  3 

O  O  S  O  O 

y  o  p  o  o 

a  a  3  a  to 

-r\  to 

3  3  ^  3 

Or  Or  O 

o  o  y 

a  »  a  m  a 

aa^aa  j  j  a 

lf\  CN  CO  33 - 

^  ^  C>  S' 

^  9  I  OH*J 
O  b  Orl  «  a 

®  (-i  a  63  a 

p  cn  p  a  rH 

a  -a  o  js  xj  a, 

S  (J<  -P  o  • 

mo  a  u  g 

3  S'3<5?£,5 

O  -H  P  O 

So  p  a  c  a, 

o  to  a  a 

O  a  a  33  -3 

0  3* 
3  V  ®  5 
O  o  -P  o 
P  P  C  -P 
«  o  -P  «* 
P  UJ 
a  H  ^  Vl 

3  2d  3  O 
o  to  o 

O  O  -P 
a  3  a  to 
O  I  o  c 
S  «*  S  M 

*  £  £ 

Oi  a  a. 

«V  <p  S 

&°  fc°,3 

V,  +3  V.  p  P 

a  a  a  a  o 

-p  := 

O  0) 

4)  43 

rH  «k  CJ 

*  e?5j 

Oh  p 

0  0  3 

p-g  § 
a  a  a 

c  ^  3 

®i^tx  qor 







































fcl  > 

ts  a 

I  3 

-o  > 

H  ®  U  9 
H  «  H  » 
«  «*  P  >  2» 
2d  J  J 

p  »  •  is 

3,  23  «  :»  3 

:  ;l  <  j  4 

H  J  2  2  2 
J  2  S  J5  a 
2  3  2  3  2 

3  > 



M  JS 

J3  X 

•J  P 

^  1 

5  3 


3  3 

5  >.  >  H 

r  i-3  2*  %  IA 


-3  3  3  P  P 

3  3  >  >  :i 

-r  ■  -  -  J 

JO  iC^TO 

O  P  J 
C  3  JS  P 
P  o  o  a 
.a  a  .a  o 
io  03  a  > 

3  0^55 

— —  «~4  <^1  ■*«  —*  -p 

^  W' 

O  «—  o  o 
q  o  O 

(0  N  U  (Q 

ii  S  5  4 

■—•  P  ■  -*  P 

s  3  r*  j 
o  o  <-  a 

3  O'  C5  3 
O  t-  C  O 

to  m  «  (0 


3  3  3  ^33 
0  O  0  C'  o  o 

s  a  8^ a  a 

O  CO  o 
sD  CO  P- 

o  o  p- 
r-  p-  p- 











^t“Bd  I  ?S 

jc  PX3TI 

p  o  o  a 

cd  a  ®  3 

a  p  ci  to 

<0  M  f>»  w  t. 

p  a.  S3  c  e  o  >, 

a  o  m  <u  u 

P  Vt  i-(  JZ  <P  P 

oi  oo3a  on 

p  o  p 

>  pay®  PS 

®  a  a  c  a  ® 

P  C  ^  O  P  C  -G 

id  Ha,~fo  mo 

aim  qor 













3  3 









0)  QJ 







►-3  *"3 



J0  3q.TS*I 

a^w^g  nooaofj 

jo  ^suilgg 


JO  AlO 


cjO  c 

c  C:  * 

i-t  £s  o 
s  r-  q 
•h  -h 
«H  ••  C 

33  3 

>  3  r- 

1)  Cl  M 

3  J?  3 

25-3  5  555  5 

3  3  3 
o  o  o 

V  V  V 
CO  CO  *1 

.9  .9  9 

g  § 
H  8 
£  5 


j\  On 

r»  t— 







CO  cn 


o  a* 

r—  r— 

CO  CO  \ 

•w  r*. 
os  os  ( 

r*  r— ■  i 


NT  eg 



eg  cjn 

a  ta "  • 

co  r- 


NO  u~\ 

v :  ’*o 


o  o 




o  o 

ON  O'  < 

,->  r- 

'—  T~ 



r—  r—  i 






jo  PT»T£ 

O  ("A  CM 


tA  CO  CO 



33  33 


£3  33  f 


P  P 


<D  +J 



JS  -S 


33  c 

O  5 

=3  0  0 
«  <p  td 

p  e 

CC  P  <D 

+3  ca  u 
ul  c  ® 

3  M  "* 

O  P  • 
O  C  P 

«  p  o 

■*•  -3  dd 

33  33  P  33 

P  P  O  P 

3  ^  3  5 

td  3  P  32 
O  ■  ffl  C  <0 
a>  to  -p  Qj  -p 
33  >>  3  O  H 
i  £-•  33  P  -p 
!  a,  «  c.  oi 

Vd  V 

O  .  3  -P  3 
a  o  3  o 
P  *  O  CU  O 

bj  td  <n  e  “> 
c  o  o  o 
3  a  2 

•Tin  qor 


§3  £  S>  &£!  & 


jo  ag.xa 

>  o 

2  u 

p  cl 

'S  § 

>  V 

§  a  3 

P  P 

p  oi  <n 

>»  c  J  <u 


<i>  W 





a  o 


?H  S 


Q>  >  • 

»r  3 


J5  > 





■-£  •. 

j3  3 



A  *t  tp| 

3  ?» 


JO  >13 

X  P  <0  r-1  P 

■»1  4  "d  H  -3 

■i  “3  *5  d 

ij  IH 
a>  td  p 
H  ®  P 
J  >  2 

^  * 


‘-4  >  3 

rt  J-C 

3  1 

•a  td 

®  p  ^  p 
&•  P  fci  H 

e  p 

>.33  TJ 

p  pi  a 

td  p  P 

P  3  > 

>  dP  «  P 




Hobart  Adol* fovlch 


jo  Aid 

C*-  C 


^  «H  *H 

•**  «  N  «  «M  W  MlUWU4M?>9IMtW  H 

=§  2$x  a  a  &  ss 

O  O  ^  o  cv  to 

£■  5^  t  to  o 

0n  0s  0s  0^  0s  0n  0s 

r  r~  r»  t—  r-  r-  r— 

O  O  vO  Q>  cv  to  to  CO  00  ^  T-  to  to  C o  Sf  o 

^  £■  O  ^Ow  O  n0  ooot  o 

0n  On  O'  0n  o  0n  0n  Qn  On  On  0n  qs  qs  0s  0s  0s  CT^ 













































O'  S' 























<D  «  G  «B  +> 

O  'O  O  >v  OC 

O  ®  -C  JC  -tJ 

<H  .C  £C  0.  W 


§  •  °  8.33 

3  x 8  o 

I  A  C  Q  (, 

»im  qor 


s  M 

®  4>  O 

A  <Q  ® 

u  e  Ei 


Vi  a  a 

o  o  >  <o 

Tl  O  C 

4>  DCU 

c  ir  a  vi 
M  0.3  o 

W  3 

l-J  .£ 


■D  •  „  *  •  C  3 

3  -H  +»  >  r-l  ® 

3  <n  fi  o  S  ® 

Vi  O’^  ®  .h  a.  i-i 

oh  m  a  o  e 

G  .Q  i— I  -P 

M  4  e  O  VI  ®  CQ 

a  *  o  > 

W  U  C  •  ®  3 

v>  f.  ®  +>  q  +> 

3  a  d  >>  n  (, 

I  C  £>ic  G  vi  o 


3  C 

O  xjH 
^  «  < 

C  -G  x 

S  v) 

=S  ^  3 

*  s  i 

«  3  M 

•T5-TI  =.or 


ft  ft  ft 

CO  s 
13  ft 

PliVZWEK,  iioyemi  Jew  Jiol  197<l  197U  Moscow 

PllilitlOV,  Ilevol't  Ivanovich  1931  DPM  Inst  of  Math  lath  >7-63  1949  195 1  197* j  Lenincm 

PLUTKHI  DPH  Prof  La  tv.  State  U  lath  1969  1969  Rina 

co  '■i- 

»  J*  3  3 

o  r-  o  O  O 

>  o  o  o  a 

Q)  (Q  M  Q  (0  n  CQ 

O  3 

to  .  c«- 

O  5  O' 

S  O  t- 

Ih  c:  >  o 

IX  tl  D  a 

o  o  3^  1 

eo  co  3 
■3  0  N 

(ss^tp)  (E 

XB^pdscH  ci 



MM  -P  3  G  M 

E-C  O  >»  3  O  M 

m  o.  a.  o  a  s: 

3  M  O  a  «  O 

HK  O  O  OX  I 

>01  lOSDH 

Vt  tO  M  M 

o  o  o  o 

18  +»  +»  J3 
a  in  +j 

aTVFI  qor 

qvia  £ 

jo  aiiq  o 

X  J3  as  U 
mo  >® 

aS  X  «»  01 






e  • 

X  X  ai 
«"  M  > 

X  > 

«k  a 









•o  « 
o  > 








as  id  o 

01  01  3 

>  >  «c 

as  > 

3  M 

<3  3 


•a-  *r 

a  «k 

>  3 


3  01 
as  3 

M  (C 

=T  3 
31  3 



3  3  as 

3  01 







>  > 

>  3 

3  X 

3  3 




2  PI 

o  a 




3  O 

3a  3* 

3  3 

-3  f-1 
a.  53 
o  o 

&->  > 

W  01 

3  3 

£5  > 

3  2 

3j  3  C 

O  -P 
3  -H  <  M 

01  >  > 

.  I  o  •> 

X  M  3  •> 
M  *rl  OX 

Id  M  MM 

«"■  W  O  >‘-d 

H  M  301 

-  XI  3> 

He  3X 

D  !h  ««* 

*H  -rf  <0 

P>  U2 

oooooocaq^H  o 


WB30ltQW&3>(ijC5)  02 

O  ~  -H  -rj  £ 

to  to  o  ;o  to  to  to  ■•;  iaitv  co  si 




3  3  0 

o  o  a 
o  o  n  > 

W  tO  (5  V 

so  to» 
o  00 
o  ON  O' 




»im  0.0 r 

uof^cnps  I  £ 

cc  O 

cn  m 

05  CO 

uu  » 

co  c 

Q)  U 

_ =*_2i _ 

Ol  Hj 

5J  »-3 

co  r3 



sail  Si  u 


JO  9^ 

«-  <u 

•h  o  2 

U  >4 


>H  >» 

*3  3  5 

w- a  “T* 


x:  st  o 

O  O  *H 
•H  -H  > 

>  >  g 
0  0  3 
rH  rH  "H 

C  C  ffl 
35  J3 
_  J4  34 
>  H’HTSH' 
3  —  -H 

+>  U  o 

S3  3  X>  -J 

3).*  r 

>-**£>  3  * 

.  .3  -  : 

Soil  j  »; 

m  3  s3  u  m  a  5 

H  3h  H  r-4  2D  2 
2X03  £3; 

-0  o  x  a  m  a  i 

e  a 


•>  O  M 

§  *3  a 

2  M  O 
0  3  3 
a  a  r-t 

>  J  o  ; 
h  2  s<  i 
a  so  'a  p 


ois.uuuh.nuu,  i  V  DF1  Prof  Inst  of  Math  Math  196J  1969  Kiev 

CMUMiev  State  U 

SKVIKSKIY,  Vladimir  196'  1977  Moscow 

SlilhMOV,  Yu  M  J>FJ  Prof  Inst  of  Hath  Math  196i  196£  Moscow 


-3  G 






c  *h 





Vi  V2 

C.  w 









O  5  C 






•H  *H 






G  ® 

G  O  I® 

O  O 





^  <0 







•H  O 


>  U  ® 

o  o 





-  o 








s  > 


C  w  o 


CO  <0 












a;  o 


■P  O  3 


$  £ 






o  o 






►J  3 

«  3  O 




3  3 


— • 







jc  PT9TI 



















n  (0  to  co  co 

I*  £&&  >> 

(l,  _  a,  Oi  a,  s, 

ra  a:  ih 

>,  ,a  -p  o 

^  ®c® 

a,  ®  s  So 

®  j? 

-p  PU 


-P  -O  -P 

ta  -P  c  a 

2  t>  a 

K  C  UH 
M  M  C 
n  M,a 

®  t>  d  o 

S®  «  ® 
-i.  t— 3 

.3  D  .  ®  S)  |  >,  O 

ojo  ®  ®  c  o  m  .a  G 

>>-P  -P  >»  ®  -P  E  a,  -P 

£  c  cpojoc®  o 

Ok  -P  -P  Pk  G.-P  to  hp, 

W  W  <0  VI  O 

<P  _  >,<P  Q  >,ip  -P  <p 

05  -H  O  e  -H  O  O  O 

o  as  -p  as  3 

-P  a  .  p<«  P3P 

a  o  pm  c  ®  c  ® 

CO  O  G  Vt  O  G  O  C 


sItTi  qor 

















a  s 

Sp  3  3 

rt  rH  >S 

C/3  jH  *  Aj 
"3  >  > 

£  .-3  3  3 

c  a33  a 

O  >H  S3  \£  li 

“•  o  g  o  o 

S  o 

£k  kS  « 
-5  > 
«o  a 
O  ®  pH 






jo  **tTO 

ir\  o-s 

£\  3  o  3  S 

f-  O  1-  O  o 

y  o  o 

m  ©  ••  Cl  tl 

0  3  >C 

c  r  f.  C 

•H  £*  f»  U 

351  S3  g  g  ^  g  ^  g 
8  S  -a  -3  88-^8 
^5<2  3  j  5  £  £  JS  5 

co  r**  f*-  -^co  cm 

•o  ?"•  ^  >w  ^ 

Q\  Qv  0s  <7^  O  0s 



CCS  •?.!<£ 


a  a  • 


®  ®  iH 



■P  -P  O 

•P  6h 



-p  -p  a 

©  a 
c  © 


00  CO 

vi  a 

M  ^ 



»  S  O  o 

2l  © 




O  °  ,Tj 
o  o  -P  a 
a  a  a  >, 

O  C 






^  o 



•TVW  qof 




jo  ®a«a 


•  ;*=:& 

>  3  ^  W  Oj 

O  -4  r-*3  CH  ^ 

7  q  C  n  9 

>  i?  ^  a  'a 

•a  p>  >  >  > 

M  >Tm  £ 

m~  Q  •* 

>  »  to  —  •. 


=?  a  j  a  a 

0U  H  H  vl  J 

2«  w  w 5  E3 
k-»  > 

•a  s* 

«  i- 

Sfl  3 

5r  -- 

£  5 

:d  — *— • ■  o 

"■  a  ^?a  S 
-  s  s  Q  a 
>»  .x  o 

■H  >,-P  « 

g  -  <H  «H 

>  M  -P  S  V. 

race:  a 

!•>•>•  •> 
•=*“—  »  •>  5» 

>  >  -  -  h3 

I  O  o  «*  M  jj  a 

l  3  S  O  3  3  r-t 

•»-«•■  a  a  a 

I  —  —  ®  Jh  Sh  M 
i  H  H  <tH  Eh  *h  S 


>»  * 
c  e  > 
N  h  a 


•H  M 
3  pi 

P«»  O  «r 

•  o  • 

M  -H 

JjS  35 

‘g  o 




3  -  a 

^  J  2 

r*i  M  — 



V  63 

>  O  S 


a  a. 


>  >* 

O  O  -rt 

3iJr I 

«  O  _ 

•p  x  -p  a 

n  a 
®  «  S  » 

c  »  *’  >-l 

Ol  H4  t-t  P3 

a  3  »  a 

S3  to  - 

<*£h  m  as 

sgi  ss 

3  o  to  m  > 

a  «  a  a  a 

z  a  H  -■  *J 

>vr  -h 

C*-  f-  -a 

*  O  ?  O  3  3  *h  3 
O  1-  O  f-  O  O  WO 

So  o  a  >  o  v 

aas -3a^a^5 

s  &  3  SO 

O  *—  0  0  r-  3 

O  O  O  O 

ta  ..  n  m  «  o 

O  “  0  O  9  so 

S  3  3  3  «  5 


c  <r\ 

t*  c- 

SpO  s  3 



'JO  IN 
P-  P»  P- 
O'  O  O' 

>*  so  so  to  CO  CO 
^  O  vO  o  o  o 

(jN  f^N 



-P  H  O 
CO  «  ®  M 
•  CO  T3  £-t 
>  I  M 
-P  =3  G  =5 

<0  3  ®  £  C 

+3  +3  *3  SO  ffl 

a  is  «  sJ  b 

-p  s  -p  +»  a  3 

CO  +3  to  ffl  -P 
so  fc»  C  Vi  « 
S  C  O  3h  O  h 

OHO  <D 

o  -P’O  •  -P  Q, 
to  <o  to  a  >o  to  g 

o  ®  a  o  o  a  ® 

t*  u  *r*  c-i 

3i+ti  cor 


5  d 

a,  3 

j  5 

o  o 

=»  > 

O  .  . 

X  X  X 
c  H  H  «■ 
'jS  !aS  ^ 

O  CO  CO  CO  « 
X  3  3  3  3 


>  >  ;»  X  X 

M  O 

c  -P 

§  2 

M  > 

a  s<s 

to  ra 

x  x 

k  .9  3* 

"T  §  3  S  cT 

C  ^  N  JS  o 

q-=zx  ca  > 

a  c  c  c 

I  w  5H  >S  >i  >-4 


YuliuVSKlYn,  Genni  Jew  bio]  1970  1970  Moscow 

(wife  of  041Mb AUCV) 

YuSIlM,  1(  Mat!  1968  1963  Moscow 

YbSKA,  Alfonsns  Llth  biol  1973  1973  Vil'nyus 

Z  U»h AltOV,  V  Ye  10*11  Phyt  1968  1968  Uovoeibi 


Results  for  the  "date  of  birth"  variable  are  presented  in  Graphs  1 
and  2.  Graph  1  shows  that  nearly  505  of  all  dissident  scientists  for 
whoa  there  was  data  (124,  or  about  22;*  of  the  total)  were  born  within  a 
thirteen  year  period,  from  1930  to  1942.  What  tnis  means  is  that  half 
of  the  dissident  scientists  in  the  sample  share  common  experiences: 
childhood  during  at  least  one  of  the  dual  horrors  of  the  Stalinist  purges 
and  World  War  II;  absence  of  a  father  for  significant  periods  of  time, 
either  because  of  the  purges  or  the  war;  and  secondary  school,  university 
or  graduate  school  during  the  post-Stalinist  "Thaw."  During  the  "Thaw" 
(195o-58)  and  the  liberalization  period  after  it  (to  1984),  the  young 
scientists  in  this  generational  group  would  have  been  old  enough  to  app¬ 
reciate  the  political  and  cultural  freedoms  then  becoming  available  (the 
youngest  would  have  been  14  in  1956,  the  oldest  3^  in  196**)  and  presumably 
idealistic  enough  to  believe  in  ae-Stalinization. 

Graph  2  indicates  that  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  same  sample  began  their 
aissiaence  between  the  ages  of  24  and  41,  with  the  greatest  concentration 
from  28  to  32  years  of  age,  28?  of  the  sample.  In  fact,  only  29?  of  the 
sample  were  between  the  ages  of  42  and  76.  This  might  suggest  a  procliv¬ 
ity  for  dissidence  among  scientists  at  relatively  early  stages  in  their 
careers,  certainly  within  the  first  twenty  years. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  relatively  few  dissident  scientists 
were  active  scientists  during  the  Stalin  era,  when  physics  and  cnemistry 
were  rigidly  controlled  and  genetics  and  cybernetics  suppressed.  It  may 
be  that  there  is  a  lingering  fear  of  repression  in  the  minds  of  these 
scientists,  and  it  might  be,  too,  that  the  one3  most  likely  to  have  dis¬ 
sented  were  killed  in  the  purges  of  the  late  1930's.  If  one  considers 
a  date  of  birth  of  1921  or  earlier  to  be  appropriate  for  scientists  who 
would  have  been  active  during  most  of  the  period  1941-53,  only  24?  of  the 
scientists  in  this  sample  were  from  this  generational  group. 

What  can  be  said  about  those  people  born  during  or  after  the  war,  1942 
to  1951?  They  would  not  have  remembered  Stalin,  they  would  not  likely 
have  had  a  parent  purged  by  Stalin,  and  they  would  have  been  adolescents, 
secondary  school  and  university  students  during  the  "Thaw"  and  the  period 
of  liberalization.  None  would  have  entered  the  job  market  as  a  scientist 
until  after  the  liberalization  period,  and  the  threat  of  not  getting  or 
keeping  one's  first  job  or  getting  expelled  from  school  may  have  kept 
many  members  of  this  generational  group  from  speaking  out  in  the  late 
19o0's.  There  were  some  exceptions,  though.  DANIEL,  a  physics  student, 
was  in  his  last  year  of  secondary  school  when  he  protested  the  Oinzburg- 
Galanskov  trial  in  1968. 1  he  was  the  son  of  convicted  writer  and  dissi¬ 
dent  Yuliy  Danieni,  though,  and  this  fact  was  presumably  a  much  greater 
motivation  to  dissent  than  his  age.  Other  members  of  this  generation 
dissenting  in  the  late  i960's  were:  G0E3AN',  a  physics  student  who 
painted  protests  of  tne  Ginzburg-Galanskov  trial  on  a  number  of  buildings 
in  the  Novosibirsk  "Akademgorodok"  in  1968  and  -was  expelled  from  school;^ 
.".Zl, ' UlkOV ,  a  bioiogy  student  ir.  his  final  year  of  university  who  signed  a 
petition  at  the  Ginzburg-Galanskov  court  building  in  i960  and  was  expelled 


Year  of  Birth 

12  <(  Graph  1 

two  months  before  graduation;^  MCTYL,  a  university  cnenistry  stunent 
who  actively  supported  the  Crimean  Tatar  movement  in  l$c6  and  was  ex¬ 
pelled;1*  FOtiZYeY,  a  university  biology  student  who  was  a  member  of  a 
revolutionary  Marxist  group  and  was  arrested  in  19o9;5  and  RIPS,  a  fi¬ 
nal  year  university  matnematics  student  who  set  himself  afire  in  19o 9 

protest  the  Soviet  occupation  of  Czechoslovakia. °  These  examples, 

■ever,  seemed  to  be  the  extent  of  the  dissent  in  the  19cG's  of  this 
generation.  Witn  only  few  exceptions,  the  most  notable  of  which  is 
ShchARAIiSKIY ,  this  generation  has  not  been  particularly  active  in  the 
1970's,  even  though  it  had.,  at  this  point,  reached  the  26-37  age  range, 
which,  for  the  1930-41  generation,  was  one  of  tne  most  common  age  spans 
for  scientists  initiating  dissident  activity. 

If  one  looks  at  the  generation  of  future  scientists,  those  born  after 
1952,  can  anything  be  determined  from  their  common  childhood  experiences 
that  might  cause  them  to  dissent?  They  would  not  have  been  old  enough 
to  remember  Stalin,  the  '’Thaw"  and  period  of  liberalization  would  not 
have  affected  them  to  a  significant  degree,  as  the  eldest  of  this  gener¬ 
ation  would  have  been  only  in  elementary  school,  ana  their  secondary 
school  and  university  experiences  under  Brezhnev's  nonpermissive  tutelage 
would  have  made  them  aware  that  official  persecution  accompanied  all  out¬ 
breaks  of  dissidence.  More  importantly,  though,  this  is  the  generation 
that  has  grown  up  with  the  dissident  movement.  Members  of  this  genera¬ 
tional  group,  the  oldest  of  which  would  have  been  only  14  years  of  age 
at  the  beginning  of  the  dissident  movement  in  19t>o,  have  witnessed  the 
continued  existence  of  dissidence,  despite  governmental  crackdowns,  from 
early  childhood.  This  experience  may  reflect  on  their  proclivity  for 
dissidence  in  the  future. 

Chart  1  provides  information  on  the  ethnic  origin  of  lbl  scientists, 
about  281  of  all  the  dissident  scientists  in  this  study.  The  vast  major¬ 
ity  of  the  scientists  on  whom  this  data  could  be  found  were  Jewish,  pre¬ 
sumably  because  of  the  nature  of  the  Jewish  dissident  movement,  in  whicn 
ethnic  origin  is  a  major  issue  and  is  clearly  identified.  It  is  unlikely, 
though,  that  for  purposes  of  extrapolating  the  ethnic  origin  of  all  diss¬ 
ident  scientists  these  correlations  are  valid,  for  there  are  probably  few 
additional  known  dissident  scientists  who  have  not  revealed  their  Jew¬ 
ish  ethnicity  by  requesting  emigration.  Even  for  those  twelve  Jews  wno 
did  not  seek  emigration  but  whose  ethnic  origin  was  identified  through 
otner  sources,  the  fact  that  they  were  Jewish  could  have  been  ascertained, 
in  almost  every  case,  by  their  family  names;  if  we  loos  at  the  family 
names  of  other  scientists  for  whom  ethnic  data  was  not  available,  perhaps 
another  sixty  could  be  estimated  as  "Jewish."  Thus,  at  the  most,  about 
301  of  dissident  scientists  in  this  study  are  Jewish.  Sarghoorn,  inci¬ 
dentally,  quotes  a  figure  of  60-7015  of  all  dissidents  in  the  "democratic" 
movement  as  being  Jewish  or  married  to  Jews, 7  Although  data  on  marriages 
to  Jews  was  not  considered  in  this  study,  the  percentage  is  certainly  not 
reflective  of  the  dissident  scientists  in  this  study. 

Only  nine  scientists  were  found  to  oe  of  Crimean  Tatar  orie-in,  a  fig¬ 
ure  vnich  would  probably  be  unchanged  if  data  on  all  this  study's  dissi¬ 
dent  scientists  were  available,  due  to  tne  distinctive  nature  of  family 
names  among  that  rroup.  The  same  could  probably  be  said  of  tne  numbers 
of  dissident  scientists  of  Polish,  Estonian,  Latvian,  and  Lithuanian 


■background;  possibly  an  additional  five  Armenians  could  be  included  on 
tne  oasis  of  their  family  names.  What  this  probably  means  is  tnat  the 
majority  of  dissident  scientists  are  of  Eastern  Slavic  ethnic  background- 
russian,  Ukrainian,  and  Belorussian.  Dissiaence  could  not,  then,  be 
traced  to  ethnic  discrimination  in  the  majority  of  cases. 

Chart  2  summarizes  the  data  on  the  religious  orientation  of  dissident 
scientists.  Despite  the  fact  that  Parry  asserts  that  religious  scientists 
were  rare,o  twenty-two  were  found  to  be  believers,  among  whom  were  such 
prominent  dissidents  as  AL'3REKhT,  T.  VELIKANOVA,  TVERDOKhLESOV ,  AnAFARE- 
VlCh,  NAZAR YaN ,  KAPITANChUK,  BEGUN  and  AGURSKIY.  Only  six  were  founa  to 
be  confirmed  atheists,  but,  because  of  the  size  of  the  sample  and  the 
paucity  of  data,  this  is  probably  not  reflective  of  tne  number  of  atheists 
among  dissident  scientists.  It  is  difficult  to  estimate  how  many  more  of 
the  scientists  are  religious.  TURChIN  asserts  that  "many  young  people 
with  a  highly-developed  religious  element  in  their  make-up  have  a  leaning 
towards  science  and  become  scientists,"  but  he  defined  religion  as  "any 
system  of  supra-personal  values  shoving  an  individual  the  way  to  a  higher 
meaning  of  being,"  which  may  or  may  not  include  membership  in  an  organized 
religion. 9  Since  being  religious  in  the  Soviet  Union  is  not  a  personality 
characteristic  encouraged  by  the  authorities,  it  would  make  sense  for  sci¬ 
entists  who  are  religious  to  keep  this  fact  hidden.  One  mignt  assume, 
however,  tnat  after  the  scientist  had  entered  the  dissident  movement  the 
persecution  would  be  implemented  regardless  of  his  orientation,  and  that 
he  might  reveal  his  religious  sentiments  at  the  start  of  his  persecution, 
either  to  unite  with  other  religious  dissidents  or  to  gain  the  support 
of  Western  religious  groups.  If  this  were  the  case,  then,  there  are 
probably  few  additional  religious  dissident  scientists  from  all  of  the 
scientists  in  this  study. 

Chart  3  indicates  that  there  were  more  Candidates  of  Sciences  than 
Doctors  of  Sciences  among  dissident  scientists  at  a  ratio  of  about  3:2. 
Chart  U  reveals,  however,  that  among  all  scientists  holding  advanced  de¬ 
grees  tne  ratio  of  Candidates  to  Doctors  is  about  7:1,  so  the  dissident 
scientist  community  includes  a  significantly  high  number  of  Doctors  of 
Sciences.  This  result  is  somewhat  surprising  in  that  the  Doctor  of  Sci¬ 
ences  degree  is  usually  awarded  to  tne  older,  more  experienced  scientists 
(see  Chart  5),  and  according  to  Graph  1,  most  of  the  dissidents  were 
younger  tnat  40  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  tneir  first  dissident  act. 
how  could  this  be  explained?  It  might  be  that  many  of  the  young  dissi- 
aents  are  doctors  but  received  tneir  degrees  at  earlier  ages  tnan  normal, 
i.e.  the  best  and  the  brightest  of  tne  young  scientists.  Another  reason 
for  the  large  number  of  doctors  might  be  that  doctors  assume  that  they 
have  more  leeway  to  hold  different  opinions  from  those  officially  ex¬ 
pounded  by  virtue  of  their  own  scientific  worth  and  achievements;  hence, 
they  might  dissent  with  little  fear  of  repercussions. 

The  largest  number  of  advanced  degrees  was  in  the  field  of  the  physico- 
mathematical  sciences,  indicating  that  the  majority  of  dissident  scientists 
who  hold  advanced  degrees  are  physicists  or  mathematicians.  It  is  inter¬ 
esting  to  note  that  the  proportion  of  dissident  scientists  holding  ad¬ 
vanced  decrees  in  physico-mathematical  sciences  is  over  twice  tnat  of  all 
scientists  holding  the  same  degrees;  thus,  there  are  twice  as  many  physi¬ 
cists  and  mathematicians  involved  in  dissidence  as  could  nave  been  predict- 

ea  on  the  oasis  of  relative  numbers  of  scientists  holding  advanced  de¬ 
grees  in  various  scientific  specialities. 

Chart  o  indicates  that  about  the  same  number  of  dissident  scientists 
wonted  in  university  teaching  positions  as  did  in  active  researcn  posi¬ 
tions.  Relatively  few  dissident  scientists  held  administrative  posi¬ 
tions,  but  a  significant  number  of  the  scientists  were  academicians  or 
corresponding  members  of  one  of  the  academies  of  sciences.  The  jobs  held 
by  dissident  scientists  seem  to  be  primarily  in  the  middle  and  upper  lev¬ 
els:  over  half  of  those  involved  in  education  Jobs  were  professors,  and 
nearly  twice  as  many  researchers  were  Senior  Scientific  Associates  as 
were  Junior  Scientific  Associates.  The  participation  of  members  of  the 
various  academies  of  sciences  undoubtedly  added  a  measure  of  prestige  and 
legitimacy  to  the  dissident  movement.  Only  one  of  the  academy  members, 
corresponding  member  of  the  Armenian  Academy  of  Sciences,  ORLOV,  has  suf¬ 
fered  critical  wrath  to  any  great  extent.  SAKhAROV,  of  course,  has  been 
harassed,  but  has  not  been  arrested  or  imprisoned. 

From  Chart  7  it  is  clear  that  the  majority  (55%)  of  organizations  at 
which  dissident  scientists  have  worked  are  subordinate  to  one  of  the  acad¬ 
emies  of  sciences,  and  that  relatively  few  (23%)  are  subordinate  to  min¬ 
istries  not  connected  with  education.  In  terms  of  personnel,  just  half 
of  ^11  the  dissident  scientists  in  this  sample  work,  at  an  academy  of  sci¬ 
ences  institute,  while  only  11%  work  at  non-educational  ministries.  Chart 
5  indicates  that  just  kl%  of  all  scientific  institutes  are  subordinate  to 
academies  of  sciences,  and  that  k5%  are  subordinate  to  non-educational  . 
ministries.  This  means  that  the  academy  of  sciences  institutes  are  mod¬ 
erately  over-represented  in  the  dissident  scientist  community,  and  the 
non-educational  ministries  are  significantly  under-represented.  The  edu¬ 
cational  ministries  were  about  twice  as  numerous  among  those  entities  em¬ 
ploying  dissident  scientists  ss  might  have  been  expected  from  the  rela¬ 
tive  number  of  institutes  ir  te  educational  ministries.  These  correla¬ 
tions  vould  lead  one  to  bel.  ve  that  there  is  something  inherent  in  the 
academy  of  sciences  and  the  educational  ministries  that  attracts,  causes, 
or  encourages  dissidents,  while  there  is  something  in  the  non-education¬ 
al  ministries  that  appalls,  discourages,  or  subdues  them. 

The  Academy  of  Sciences  USSR  has  administrative  control  over  1^£  of 
all  scientific  institutes  in  the  USSR,  but  32 %  of  all  institutes  at 
dissident  scientists  have  worked  have  been  subordinate  to  tae  Acaaemy. 

This  may  indicate  that  tne  Academy  of  Sciences  USSR  provides  the  most  con¬ 
ducive  atmosphere  for  dissidents,  or  creates  dissidents,  or  simply  at¬ 
tracts  those  scientists  who  eventually  become  dissidents,  ft  variety  of 
reasons  could  be  suggested  for  the  selection  of  an  Academy  of  Sciences 
USSR  institute  as  a  place  of  work:  better  pay  and  perquisites,  more  pres¬ 
tige,  Moscow  location  (555  of  all  the  Academy  of  Sciences  USSR  institutes 
in  this  study  were  based  in  Moscow),  priority  given  to  theoretical  and 
basic  researcn,  and  a  more  liberal  intellectual  atmosphere.  The  Academy 
probaoiy  also  attracts  the  best  ana  the  brightest  of  those  scientists  who 
do  not  want  to  get  involved  in  research  which  is  overly-ciassif iea  and 
compartraented,  wnich  would  be  the  case  in  the  non-educational  ministries. 

Thart  9  shows  tne  institutes  vitn  a  significant  (five  or  over)  numoar 

of  dissidents,  a  fact  that  has  no  doubt  been  brought  to  the  attention  of 
the  respective  institute  directors  by  the  appropriate  Soviet  authorities. 
One  night  speculate  as  to  the  meaning  of  a  relatively  large  number  of 
dissidents  in  a  specific  institute:  lax  security,  loose  Party  control, 
and  administrative  tolerance,  or  the  reverse  -  very  strict  administrators, 
tight  security  measures,  and  overall  repression.  It  could  further  be 
suggested  that  measures  have  been  taken  by  the  respective  institutes  to 
correct  this  situation,  and  it  may  be  that  these  institutes  are  nov  mod¬ 
els  of  decorum.  It  is  significant  that  most  are  located  in  Moscow  and 
are  subordinate  to  an  educational  ministry  or  the  Academy  of  Sciences 
USSR.  Even  more  interesting  is  that  two  of  these  institutes  are  subor¬ 
dinate  to  the  State  Committee  on  the  Peaceful  Use  of  Atomic  Energy,  an 
employer  which  for  security  reasons  would  not  ordinarily  be  tnought  to 
be  lenient  with  or  tolerant  of  dissidents. 

Chart  10  reveals  that  the  greatest  concentration  of  dissident  scien¬ 
tists  was  in  the  field  of  mathematics.  This  is  probably  due  to  the  VOL'- 
PIN  arrest  in  1$68  which  elicited  support  by  eighty-seven  matnematicians . 
It  may  be,  though,  that  the  number  of  dissident  scientists  in  the  field 
of  physics  represents  a  greater  proportion  of  committed  dissident  scien¬ 
tists,  for  only  twelve  of  the  eighty-seven  mathematicians  dissenting  in 
19b8  repeated  a  dissident  act  after  VOL'PIJf’s  arrest.  There  was  no  one 
dissident  act  supported  by  physicists  comparable  to  the  VOL ' PIN  dissent, 
so  it  is  likely  that  there  are  more  physicists  than  mathematicians  com¬ 
mitted  to  the  dissident  movement  in  general. 

Why  would  there  be,  in  any  c$se,  more  dissident  scientists  in  mathe¬ 
matics  and  physics  than  in  chemistry,  biology  and  geology?  Chart  11 
shows  that  under  half  of  all  scientists  were  involved  in  mathematics  and 
physics,  while  over  two-thirds  of  the  dissident  scientists  were  in  these 
fields.  It  may  be  that  the  best  and  brightest  of  Soviet  scientists  went 
into  physics  and  mathematics;  mathematics  might  have  been  chosen  for  its 
abstract,  non-idiological  nature,  and  physics  may  have  been  attractive 
for  the  substantial  financial  support  given  it  by  the  government  and  the 
resulting  high  quality  research  facilities  (although  physics  was  not 
ideologically  neutral). ^  Salisbury  offers  a  theory  that  the  mode  of 
thinking  engendered  in  physics  is  conducive  to  intense  questioning  ana, 
presumably,  dissent: 

There  is  clearly  something  about  the  discipline  of 
physics  that  causes  a  great  physicist  to  look  be¬ 
yond  the  formulas,  the  theorems,  the  infinitely 
intricate  hypotheses  by  which  he  tests  and  deter¬ 
mines  the  natural  laws  of  tne  universe  and  into 
the  seemingly  simpler  but  actually  more  complex 
pnenomena  of  man's  society.  Or,  perhaps,  this  is 
illusion.  Perhaps  it  is  simply  that  with  their 
finely  tuned  minds  the  physicists  are  able  to 
penetrate  more  swiftly  and  more  deeply  the  mum 
and  bias  with  which  human  beings  normally  snrcua 

Altnougn  the  relative  number  of  biologists  in  tne  USSR  .1  ■  „s*. 
tnirds  tnat  of  chemists,  tnere  are  twice  as  many  dissident  . 

are  biologists  as  those  who  are  chemists.  This  ooulu  res:  .  -  . 
ed  ov  tne  fact  that  biolcgy  has  suffered  greatly  :r.  re.’v:.* 

particularly  in  the  field  of  genetics,  and  that  biologists  are  incensed 
by  this  ideological  interference. 

Chart  12  indicates  that  the  majority  of  dissident  scientists  in  the 
sample  vere  members  of  the  Communist  Party  or  the  Komsomol  (o8i)t  voile 
only  10%  vere  anti -Party  Marxists,  i.e.  those  who  would  dissent  for  po¬ 
litical  reasons.'  Non-Party  scientists,  who  made  up  22%  of  all  dissident 
scientists  in  the  sample,  are  probably  ostracized  to  some  extent  even 
without  performing  dissident  acts.  The  decision  not  to  Join  tne  Party, 
too,  might  be  considered  an  act  of  defiance  on  its  own.  Such  decisions 
would  be  made  by  scientists  with  full  knowledge  of  the  consequences: 
more  difficult  career  advancement,  reduced  travel  opportunities,  and 
administrative  distrust.  The  same  motivation  benind  the  decision  not  to 
Join  the  Party,  then,  might  be  behind  the  motivation  to  dissent. 

Although  Soviet  dissident  scientists  are  probably  not  much  different 
from  the  rest  of  Soviet  society  in  terms  of  the  effect  of  the  Stalinist 
purges  on  their  families,  it  is  none  the  less  interesting  to  note  the 
number  of  scientists  affected  (Chart  13):  KOSTLPINA,  whose  father  was 
imprisoned, ^2  TALANTOV,  whose  father  was  killed, 13  GASTEV,  whose  father 
vas  shot  in  1938, l1*  AGURSKIY,  whose  father  vas  arrested  in  1936  and  ex-. 
iled,15  AL ' BREKhT ,  whose  father  vas  arrested  in  1937  ana  shot  in  1938,10 
LANDA,  whose  father  vas  arrested  in  1932  and  asain  in  1937,  and  died  in 
1939,17  VAKhTIN,  whose  father  vas  imprisoned, 18  MEDVEDEV,  whose  fatner 
vas  arrested  in  1938  and  died  in  1941,^-9  and  GESXIN,  whose  fatner  was 
killed. 20  Among  those  scientists  who  vere  themselves  pursed  were  D. 
end  VIL'YaKS.  It  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  the  experience  all  these 
scientists  had  with  tne  Stalinist  purges  in  one  way  or  another  influenced 
their  decision  to  dissent  in  the  I960’ s. and  1970's. 

Graph  3  indicates  that  the  number  of  dissident  scientists  in  prison 
has  steadily  declined  since  1972.  The  same  can  be  said  for  the  numoer  of 
dissident  scientists  in  psychiatric  hospitals,  per  Graph  4.  Graph  5  snows 
that  the  number  of  dissident  scientists  arrested  per  year  was  tne  greatest 
between  the  years  1967  and  1972  and  has  fallen  off  to  less  than  naif  tne 
pre-1972  rate  in  recent  years  (1977-76).  what  this  would  mean  in  terms 
of  motivation  for  dissidence  is  that  the  scientist  dissenting  for  tne 
first  time  after  1972  probably  had  less  fear  of  arrest  and  imprisonment 
tnan  did  those  scientists  dissenting  prior  to  1972.  This  relative  offi¬ 
cial  tolerance  might  have  prompted  some  scientists  to  dissent  because  the 
risk  vas  no  longer  as  great. 

.  Chart  14  indicates  that,  as  expected,  the  greatest  number  of  dissident 
scientists  in  the  Soviet  dissident  movement  vas  in  1968,  when  the  Gins- 
burg-Galanskov  and  VOL' PIN  protest  letters  vere  signed.  It  is  quite  sig¬ 
nificant,  though,  that  the  number  of  new  dissident  scientists  per  year 
has  remained  remarkably  stable  since  1963,  around  twenty-five  per  year. 

One  could  conclude,  then,  that  the  authorities'  attempt  to  scare  the  rest 
of  the  scientific  community  into  submission  -  by  denouncing  and  firing 
those  scientists  who  signed  the  19bS  protest  letters  -  vas  not  completely 
successful.  It  could  be  argued,  in  fact,  that  the  dissident  scientists 
appearing  after  1966  had  stronger  convictions  and  commitment,  since  they 
presumably  recognized  the  consequences  of  their  dissident  actions.  Tne 

1968  protest  letter  signers ,  however,  probably  did  cot  realize  that  they 
would  be  persecuted  for  their  actions.  The  fact  that  the  1966  protest 
letter  signers  were  not  confirmed  dissidents  can  be  seen  in  the  small 
number  of  that  who  continued  to  dissent  (the  recidivists)  after  I960: 
only  forty  of  those  who  had  dissented  prior  to  or  during  1966  continued 
to  take  part  in  dissident  activities.  Vith  this  smaller  number  in  mind, 
one  can  see  that  the  twenty  or  thirty  scientists  becoming  dissidents 
each  year  subsequent  to  1966  is  quite  significant. 

Chart  15  shows  that  the  majority  of  dissident  scientists  lived  in 
Moscow.  Significant  numbers  are  also  found  in  Kiev,  Leningrad,  Novo¬ 
sibirsk  and  the  Baltic  republics.  It  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  the 
dissidents  came  from  these  areas,  as  the  main  scientific  institutes  of 
the  country  are  located  there.  Additionally,  the  nature  of  "samizdat" 
is  such  that  the  greatest  amount  of  information  would  have  been  obtain¬ 
ed  about  people  living  in  or  near  the  major  population  centers.  If  one 
were  to  find  a  motivation  for  dissidence  provided  by  place  of  residence, 
it  might  reside  in  the  fact  that  these  cities  are  European,  with  the 
looser  and  freer  atmosphere  that  would  allow  scientists  to  express  their 
views  privately  without  reprisal  and  could  lead  them  into  dissident  ac¬ 
tivities.  The  opportunities  for  finding  like-minded,  politically  astute 
fellows  would,  in  any  case,  be  more  readily  available  in  such  cities. 

It  might  seem  surprising  that  the  number  of  dissident  scientists  is 
not  particularly  high  in  the  "science  cities,”  where  it  might  be  expect¬ 
ed  that  the  high  concentration  of  scientists  in  relatively  isolated  areas 
would  lead  to  active  dissidence*.  One  Soviet  citizen,  in  fact,  shared 
this  view: 

Whatever  (the  authorities')  purposes  may  be,  a  thou¬ 
sand  scientists,  a  thousand  intellectuals  gathered 
together  in  a  single  small  town  will  create  a  fantas¬ 
tic  effect!  In  such  intellectual  greenhouses  a  new 
pnilosonhy  of  Russian  life  may  suddenly  spring  into 
being! 2l 

Popovsky  writes,  though,  that  despite  all  the  good  intentions,  the  "sci¬ 
ence  city"  scientists  have  lapsed  into  the  same  hierarchic  and  careerist 
frameworks  that  their  "big  city"  colleagues  enjoy  and  exist  in,  and  that 
the  "science  cities"  do  not  offer  the  intellectual  salvation  once  assoc¬ 
iated  vith  them. 

Chart  16  snows  that  the  majority  of  the  dissident  scientists  have 
emigrated  or  defected  between  the  years  of  1973  and  1977.  There  are 
probably  a  very  great  number  of  Jewish  scientists  who  have  emigrated 
without  dissenting,  and  these  scientists  are  not  included  in  the  table, 
as  cne  "samizdat"  sources  mentioned  only  those  Jews  vho  had  experienced 
difficulty  in  emigrating  and  vho  had  protested  their  treatment  at  the 
hands  of  the  emigration  authorities.  Appendix  III  lists  all  those  Jewish 
scientists  who  are  seeking  emigration  but  vho  have  not  yet  been  allowed 
to  leave. 


CM  1 

Ethnic  Origin  cf  Dissident  Scientists 

(Saz^lei  164) 

Ethnic  Origin 

Number  of  Scientists  Percent  of  Sample 

Jewish  120 
Russian  17 
Crimean  Tatar  9 
Lithuanian  7 
Ukrainian  5 
Armenian  2 
Estonian  2 
Polish  1 
Latvian  1 









Religious  Orientation  of  Dissident  Scientists 

( Sample t  28) 

Religion  Number  of  Scientists 

Judaism  5 

Christian  (unspecified)  4 
Catholic  3 

Orthodox  7 

Protestant  1 

Baptist  1 

3uddhism  1 





Level  of  Education  Among  Dissiaent  Scientists 

university  Diploma  Only 
Candidate  cf  Sciences 
joctor  of  Sciences 

22  (  }') 

12S  ( 51*5 ) 

oy  (11/)) 

Number  Of 

Le.rree  In 


Pnysico-l-'at  i  c  al 



biological  Sciences 


Chemical  Sciences 


Geological  Sciences 



Number  Of 

Doctors  'Totals 








1  “ 

(  55) 



(  25) 

(Source:  2.  Zaleski  et  al,  Sci 
eace  Policy  in  the  li£3E .  Paris 
OCID,  19b9,  pp  ll*o-14y) 

Level  of  Advanced  Education  in  the  Scientific  Community  (iyop) 

Decree  In 

Number  Of 

Number  Of 


Phys  ico-;«iathenatical 






Biological  Sciences 





Chemical  Sciences 





Geological  Sciences 


31*624  (88%) 


4090  (125) 

p2b  7 


CSAK7  5 

(Source:  Zaleski,  p  336) 
Percentage  of  Doctorates  Avarded  19^7-55  Ey  Age 

Under  39 

14. 85 

LO  - 


ho.  2% 

50  - 







chart  6 

Jobs  Held  by  Dissident  Scientists 

( samples 

Type  of  Job  Humber  of  Scientists  Feroentege 

Education  104 









(  3$) 




Graduate  Student 



Senior  Associate 




Junior  Associate 











Department  Head 



Laboratory  Head 



Group  Head 



(  3$) 






Corresponding  Member 









Institutional  Subordination  of  Dissident  Scientiats 

( sample  >  123  Institut#V256  acient 



Humber  of  Institute a 
(Percent  of  Total) 

Acadery  of  Sciences  USSR  39  (  329) 

( excluding  Siberian  Dept) 

Siberian  Department,  Academy  8  (  T%) 
of  Sciences  USSR 

Ukrainian  Academy  of  Sciences  10  (  8?) 

Latvian  Academy  of  Sciences  4  (  3?) 

.Armenian  Academy  of  Sciences  2  (  2%) 

Georgian  Academy  of  Sciences  1  (1%) 

Lithuanian  Academy  of  Sciences  1  (1%) 

Moldavian  Academy  of  Sciences  1  (1$) 

.Academy  of  Medical  Sciences  USSR  4  (  35*) 

of  Ministers  USSR 
.All-Union  Ministries 
Union-Republic  Ministries 
( non-Sduca tional) 
Union-Republic  Ministries 

Republic  Ministries 

Republic  Ministries 
( non-Sducational) 
Republic  Ministries 

Humber  of  Dissident  Scientists 
(Percent  of  Total) 






(  7?) 


(  4?) 


(  8?) 


(  5?) 


(  3?) 


(  2?) 


(  256) 


(  1?) 










l  4 

(  3?) 


(  3?) 


(  7?) 


(  8%) 


(  3?) 


(  2?) 




(  6?) 


(  2?) 




(  2?) 


(  1?) 






Institutional  Subordination  in  the  Soviet  Scientific  Community 

(samples  1200) 

Subordination  Humber  of  Institutes 

(Percent  of  Total) 

Academy  of  Sciences  USSR 



Siberian  Department,  Academy 


(  3%) 

of  Sciences  USSR 

All  republic  Academies  of 




Academy  of  Medical  Sciences  USSR 


(  %) 

Union-Republic  and  Republic 



Ministries  (Educational) 

State  Committee  for  Atomic  Energy 


(  12) 

All  other  ministries  and  committees 



(source*  Director/  of  Soviet  Research  Crggnlz; 
, Washington, D.C.:  national  Foreign  Assessment 
Center,  March  1973) 


Institutes  with  Five  or  iiore  Dissident  Scientists 

Moscow  State  University  33 

Institute  of  Mathematics  imeni  Steklov,  Moscow  10 

Institute  of  Theoretical  and  Experimental  Physics,  Moscow  7 

Institute  of  Atomic  Energy,  Moscow  7 

Latvian  State  University,  Riga  7 

Institute  of  Chemical  Physics,  Moscow  6 

Institute  of  Physics  of  the  Atmosphere,  Moscow  6 

All-Union  Institute  of  Scientific  and  Technical  Information,  Mac  ow 

Institute  of  Problems  of  Information  Transmission,  Moscow  6 

Kiev  State  University  5 



CHART  10 

Field  of  Science  of  Dissident  Scientists 

(Sample:  *+39) 

Field  of  Science 







Number  of  Scientists 







Percentage  of  Total 







CHART  11 

Field  of  Science  of  All  Scientists  (1 96?) 

(Sample:  H*0662) 

Field  of  Science  dumber  of  Scientists  Percentage  of  Total 

Mathematics  &  Physics 












(Source:  ZalesAi,  p.  193) 

CHART  12 

Party  Affiliation  of  Dissident  Scientists 

( Sample :  59 ) 

Communist  Party 






Marxist,  Non-Party 






CHART  13 

Purged  Dissident  Scientists 

and  Their 

1  Families 

Father  Purged 


Scientist  Himself  Purged 


Brother  Purged 


C E132  14 

h’uaber  of  Dissident  Scientists  in  Dissident  llovenent  per  fear 

(scientists  in  prison  ore  not  included  for  dotes  of 
their  inprisonment,  nor  are  they  counted  as  first- 
tine  dissenters  when  they  return) 

(known  -  4261. 

err i  c?  rzsilzmci 



3aitic  Republics 

Science  cities 

Krasnaya  Pakhra 
Ulan  Ude 






























iVunter  of  Dissident  Scientists  Emigrating  Per  Year 


Number  Of 

Percent  Of 
Total  Emigration 


-w^ter  of  ’ 

Dual fcer  of 

^Mliant  Solan  t 

135S  *>  ^'Chlatnc 



Scientists  . 


lrr8!rt=1  or  Horoltalj, 



ufi  1J-JI 

4.  conclusions 

Wnat  conclusions  can  be  reached  on  the  causes  of  dissideace  anonz  sci¬ 
entists?  One  is  that  the  scientist's  iiff  experience  placed  a  role  in 
the  scientist's  decision  to  dissent  -  a  significant  number  of  the  dissi¬ 
dents  in  this  study  had  grown  up  under  ooth  Stalin  and  Khrushcnev  and  aad 
attended  secondary  school  or  university  during  tne  "Tnaw"  and  period  of 
iioeralization  (195 6-6U).  It  was  also  found  that  the  age  of  the  scien¬ 
tist  played  a  role,  that  tne  overwhelming  majority  of  those  dissenting 
for  the  first  time  were  between  the  ages  of  twenty-four  and  forty-one  - 
over  a  quarter  of  them  were  between  the  ages  of  twenty-eight  and  thirty- 
two.  The  psychological  reasons  for  dissent  at  these  aces  are  beyond  the 
expertise  of  the  author,  but  it  could  be  suggested  that  job  dissatisfac¬ 
tion,  an  awakened  moral  responsibility  for  one's  privileged  position  in 
life,  or  an  attempt  to  banish  middle-aged  enui  by  political  risk-taxing 
might  be  reasons  for  dissent  at  these  ages.  One  Soviet  sreodesist  who  de¬ 
fected  in  1957,  Lev  Predtechevsky  (not  included  in  this  study)  explained 
nis  decision  to  defect  as  being  motivated  by  a  feeling  of  guilt,  taat  once 
ne  had  reached  the  middle  strata  of  the  Soviet  elite  he  began  to  taink  of 
others : 

I  naa  until  tnea  been  too  preoccupied  with  my  studies 
and  my  struggle  up  that  ladder.  Till  that  point,  I 
had  had  time  and  thought  for  my  books  and  instruments 
only.  But  now  I  was  successful  and,  for  a  young  man 
in  my  position,  quite  well  off  -  and  I  began  to  feel 

As  the  above  quote  makes  clear,  success  in  one's  Job  also  plays  a  role 
in  the  decision  to  dissent  or,  in  Predtecaevsky ’s  case,  defect.  The  dis¬ 
sident  scientists  in  this  study  are,  for  the  most  part,  successful  scien¬ 
tists  in  relatively  senior  positions:  Senior  Scientific  Associates,  Pro¬ 
fessors,  and  as  often  as  not  Doctors  of  Sciences.  Whether  guilt  is  the 
psychological  motivation,  or  whether  it  is  a  sense  of  social  responsibil¬ 
ity,  it  is  still  clear  that  doing  well  in  one's  Job  has  been  the  rule  as 
far  as  dissident  scientists  are  concerned,  not  tne  exception.  Dissidence 
has  not,  apparently,  been  the  result  of  problems  with  one’s  job.  It  must 
be  pointed  out  here  that  Jewish  scientists  have  been  subjected  to  admin¬ 
istrative  actions  which  aave  made  their  scientific  research  mucn  harder 
to  conduct,  but  it  is  significant  that  many  of  them  nave  continued  to  car¬ 
ry  out  their  research  and  attend  scientific  conferences.  They  were  not, 
then,  dissatisfied  with  their  work,  and  the  fact  tnat  they  attempted  to 
continue  it  despite  all  oaas  reflects  a  commitment  to  science.  In  other 
words,  dissiaent  scientists,  Jews  and  non-Jews  alike,  have  not  turned  to 
dissent  because  they  nave  been  dissatisfied  with  tneir  chosen  profession, 
science;  rather,  they  have  turned  so  dissidence,  in  some  respects,  because 
of  their  commitment  to  science  which  forced  them  so  oppose  arbitrary  re¬ 
straints  on  their  work. 

?or  religious  scientists,  Soviet  official  repression  of  relision  pre¬ 
sumably  contributed  to  the  scientists'  decision  to  dissent.  The  autaori- 
sies  probably  had  a  hard  time  taemselves  resolving  tne  paradox  of  a  man  of 
science  rejecting  scientific  materialism  for  setapaysical  religion,  in 



particular  scientists  of  the  stature  of  TVSEDOKhl/fTBOV ,  ShAFAE£VICh,  and 
AL'BREKhT.  Presumably  the  authorities  would  prefer  that  religion,  if  it 
must  remain  in  Soviet  life,  be  confined  to  the  older,  the  superstitious, 
and  the  less-educated  citizens.  With  the  appearance  of  well-educated  sci¬ 
entists  publicly  affirming  their  faith  in  a  Higher  Being,  though,  the  myth 
of  the  incompatibility  of  religion  and  science  is  dashed,  and  the  attrac¬ 
tiveness  of  religion  is  enhanced  for  the  young  and  well-educated. 

The  affiliation  of  the  scientist's  institute  and  his  field  of  science 
seem  to  be  less  causes  of  dissidence  than  they  are  reflections  of  tne  sci¬ 
entist's  own  mindset.  A  liberal  scientist,  i.e.  one  prone  to  dissent,pre- 
sumably  would  choose  a  relatively  liberal  institute  in  which  to  work,  and 
would  probably  choose  theoretical,  rather  than  applied,  research  because 
of  the  greater  freedom  and  less  security  matters  involved  with  the  form¬ 
er.  Institutes  subordinate  to  the  academies  of  sciences  are  more  apt  to 
be  concerned  with  theoretical  work  than  are  institutes  subordinate  to  the 
ministries,  so  the  scientist  vould  probably  choose  to  go  to  the  academies 
to  work.  The  field  of  science,  likewise,  is  a  choice  made  on  tne  basis 
of  one's  preferences  and  per suas ions.  It  may  be  that  the  logical,  intense¬ 
ly-questioning  minds  are  drawn  to  mathematics  and  physics,  the  more  exper¬ 
imental  and  practical  will  choose  chemistry  and  biology,  and  those  most 
interested  in  the  application  of  science  will  take  cybernetics  and  geolo¬ 
gy:  the  proclivity  for  dissent  might  be  inversely  proportional  to  the  ap¬ 
plicability  of  the  science  to  everyday  life.  Those  choosing  biology, 
though,  realize  that  they  are  selecting  a  field  that  was  taboo  in  tne  cot 
so  distant  past.  It  may  be  that  those  who  got  involved  in  biology  during 
or  after  Lysen&oism  are  motivated  by  a  messianic  desire  to  return  Soviet 
biology  to  its  proper  place  in  world  science,  and  that  this  scientific 
messianism  spills  over  into  political  dissidence. 

Ethnic  discrimination  has  been  a  cause  of  dissidence  among  scientists 
who  are  Jewish,  Crimean  Tatar,  Lithuanian,  Armenian,  Ukrainian  and  Eston¬ 
ian.  What  about  the  Russians  who  dissent,  though?  Does  their  ethnic 
background  influence  their  decision  to  dissent?  It  could  be  suggested 
that  tne  Soviet  nationality  policy,  which  could  be  caaracterized  as  Great 
Russian  Chauvinism,  might  provoke  in  scientists  of  Russian  descent  a  feel¬ 
ing  of  guilt  because  of  the  "privileged”  nature  of  their  nationality  - 
much  as  an  American  of  WASP  origin  might  feel  responsibility  and  guilt  for 
policies  directed  against  Americans  of  other  ethnic  backgrounds. 

If  the  data  on  Party  affiliation  is  representative,  then  it  is  clear 
that  dissidence,  as  a  rule,  is  not  a  manifestation  of  anti-Cooaunist  or 
anti-Marxist  feeling,  since  most  of  the  dissident  scientists  were  associ¬ 
ated  with  the  Party.  Very  few  of  the  dissident  scientists  have  renouncei 
socialism  in  favor  of  capitalism,  fascism,  monarchism,  theocratism,  or  oth¬ 
er  politico-economic  systems.  The  cause  of  dissidence,  then,  might  be  dis¬ 
illusionment  with  the  Party’s  brand  of  Communism  and  Marxism.  If  one  re¬ 
calls  the  democratic /human  rights  groups,  their  platforms  called  not  for 
the  elimination  of  Party  control  but  for  the  implementation  by  the  Party 
of  all  the  provisions  of  the  Soviet  Constitution  and  Soviet  lavs,  A  change 
in  the  Party's  behavior,  then,  might  satisfy  a  number  of  dissident  scien¬ 

The  imprisonment  and  hospitalization  data  shows  the  constraints  on 


dissidence  among  scientists  -  prest  jiy  the  more  scientists  in  prison  at 
a  given  time,  or  the  greater  the  nunoer  of  arrests  o?  dissident  scienti3t3, 
the  greater  the  constraints  on  otner  scientists  not  to  dissent.  Tills  "fear 
factor,"  nowever,  has  been  significantly  reduced  since  iy?k  by  tne  aecline 
in  arrests  of  scientists  for  dissident  activities.  It  cannot  be  forgotten 
tnougn,  that  the  scientists  who  nave  been  arrested  since  1972  nave  been 
among  the  most  active  dissidents,  so  what  the  authorities  are  losing  in 
quantity  of  dissidents  arrested  they  are  making  up  in  "quality." 

The  city  of  residence  indicates  that  dissident  scientists  are  relative¬ 
ly  few  and  far  between  outside  of  the  major  Soviet  cities,  Joes  place  of 
residence  cause  dissent,  though,  or,  like  place  of  work  and  field  of  sci¬ 
ence,  aoes  it  only  represent  a  personal  choice  which  reflects  the  scien¬ 
tist's  mindset?  In  other  words,  did  the  dissident-to-be  scientist  decide 
to  live  in  Moscow  because  of  its  relative  liberal  nature  and  urban  mobili¬ 
ty  suited  his  personality,  or  did  Moscow,  with  its  assorted  enticements, 
bewitch  the  scientist  into  becoming  a  dissident?  The  former  seems  the 
more  likely. 

Other  possible  causes  of  dissidence,  some  of  which  reflect  back  to  Chap¬ 
ter  II,  are  professional  ties  with  dissident  scientists,  elite  upbringing, 
and  loss  of  parent  in  Stalinist  purges.  It  would  be  difficult  to  deter¬ 
mine  whether  peer  pressure  in  professional  groups  caused  dissidence  or 
whether  scientists  of  similar  interests  simply  gravitated  towards  one  a- 
nother,  the  similar  interests  being  dissatisfaction  with  Soviet  society. 

The  motivation  for  children  of  the  Soviet  elite  to  dissent  might  be  the 
urge  to  gain  the  political  power  one  * s • upbringing  and  background  would 
seem  to  deserve,  guilt  for  one's  privileged  position  in  an  allegedly  class¬ 
less  society,  a  sense  of  responsibility  to  one's  family  to  preserve  its 
good  name,  or  upper-class  thrill-seeking.  The  loss  of  a  family  member  in 
the  Purges  would  presumably  leave  the  scientist  with  a  profound  antipatay 
for  tae  Soviet  system,  and  might  make  him  feel  morally  bound  to  avenge  tne 


These  last  few  pages  of  this  study  are  devoted  to  a  few  summary  state¬ 
ments  and  overall  conclusions  on  the  questions  posed  at  the  beginning:  vno 
are  the  dissident  scientists,  wnat  nave  tney  protested,  why  have  tney  pro¬ 
tested,  and  what  can  be  projected  from  this.  This  chapter  is  not  intended 
to  oe  merely  a  recapitulation  of  all  the  findings  of  the  previous  chapters; 
the  analyses  ana  concluding  remarks  in  each  chapter  should  serve  such  pur¬ 
poses.  Rather,  this  chapter  will  toucn  on  the  highlights  of  tne  conclu¬ 
sions  and  then  proceed  to  the  crux  of  the  matter,  without  vhicn  all  tae 
data  compilation  has  been  futile:  wnat  predictions  can  be  made  on  the  ba¬ 
sis  of  this  research  concerning  the  future  of  dissidence  in  tne  scientific 
community.  At  tne  end  of  this  concluding  chapter  a  few  aft ert nougats  and 
reservations  about  this  kind  of  researcn  will  be  offered,  surfacing,  if 
you  will,  as  flotsam,  for  tne  possible  edification  of  researchers  attempt¬ 
ing  sucn  a  study  in  the  future. 

.  Who  are  toe  scientists  who  have  dissented? 

Dissident  scientists  nave  been  primarily  mathematicians  and  physicists, 
over  half  of  whom  held  the  doctorate  degree,  vno  vere  professionally  vell- 
esta'olished.  More  than  one  of  every  tvo  dissident  scientists  worsen  in 
an  institute  subordinate  to  the  Academy  of  Sciences;  the  same  can  be  sain 
for  the  number  of  dissident  scientists  vho  lived  in  Moscow.  Leas  than  a 
quarter  of  dissident  scientists  have  worked  for  ministries  other  than  the 
Ministry  of  Higher  Education.  One  of  every  twenty  was  a  member  of  the  na¬ 
tional  or  a  republican  academy  of  sciences,  and  at  least  the  same  number 
came  from  elite  families.  One  of  every  five  dissident  scientists  was  Jew¬ 
ish.  One  out  of  every  twenty  joined  a  dissident  group,  usually  as  a  found¬ 
ing  member,  and  one  out  of  every  seven  dissident  scientists,  regardless  of 
membership  in  a  dissident  group,  was  arrested  or  confined  to  a  psychiatric 
hospital  for  his  dissidence.  Nearly  half  of  all  the  dissident  scientists 
investigated  in  this  study  dissented  only  in  1968;  less  than  a  fifth,  ap¬ 
proximately  one  hundred  scientists,  vere  determined  to  be  actively  involv¬ 
ed  in  the  Soviet  dissident  movement  as  of  1977,  and,  by  extrapolation,  as 
of  1979. 

2.  What  have  the  dissident  scientists  protested? 

At  first  scientists  appealed  for  freedoms  that  directly  affected  their 

work  as  scientists,  such  as  frssjtom  of  Information  and  less  restrictions 
on  scientific  contacts.  Although  this  appeal  was  never  absenx.  in  subse¬ 
quent  protests,  it  tended  to  be  outweighed  by  the  store  universal  appeal 
for  the  defense  of  human  rights.  Scientists  comprised  over  a  third  of  the 
members  of  the  Moscow  Helsinki  Monitoring  Group  and  a  quarter  of  those  in 
toe  various  republican  monitoring  groups;  the  groups  protested  infractions 
of  the  human  rights  articles  in  the  Helsinki  Accords.  Other  dissident 
groups  led  by  scientists,  protested  the  arrests  of  prominent  dissidents; 
still  others  researcned  the  legal  implications  of  the  trials  of  dissidents. 
Individual  scientists,  of  course,  also  continued  to  protest  the  arrests 
of  dissidents  and  fellow  scientists  in  collective  protest  letters.  Reli¬ 
gious  scientists  have  called  for  freedom  of  religion,  Jewish  scientists 
have  been  joined  by  non-Jevish  scientists  in  calling  for  freedom  of  mi¬ 
gration,  and  Crimean  Tatar  scientists  have  protested  in  favor  of  repatri¬ 
ation  of  tne  Crimean  Tatar  people.  Relatively  few  scientists,  tnougn, 
nave  been  involved  in  activities  aimed  at  overthrowing  the  Soviet  regime 
or  in  activities  employing  illegal  means. 

i.  Why  have  dissident  scientists  protested? 

First  of  all,  and  quite  obviously,  dissident  scientists  protested 


because  taere  was  something  to  protest,  i.e.  historical  events  which 
would  nave  provoked  protest  by  any  citizen  of  any  country.  Beyond  that, 
tnouca,  dissident  scientists  were  psychologically  prone  to  dissent  be¬ 
cause  of  certain  personal  and  environmental  factors  (at  least  this  was 
toe  assumption  of  the  present  study).  What  were  these  factors?  Tne  life 
experience  of  people  who  had  been  bom  between  1$30  and  lyhS2,  which  in¬ 
cluded  Stalinist  purges,  rdirushcnev' s  liberalization,  and  areznnev's  crack¬ 
down  on  dissident  writers  in  the  nid-i^cG ' s ,  seemed  to  provide  a  motiva¬ 
tion  to  dissent  because  of  the  ages  of  these  people  at  these  historical 
junctures  and  tne  clash  of  youtnful  idealism  and  the  Soviet  reality.  Ihe 
elite  upbringing  of  a  number  of  the  scientists  might  have  caused  dissi- 
dence  out  of  the  desire  for  a  share  of  the  political  power  and  the  frustra¬ 
tion  at  not  receiving  any  of  it;  the  progenies  of  elite  families  may  have 
thought  that  they  deserved  more  power  than  they  got.  Their  high  education¬ 
al  level,  too,  might  have  caused  the  dissident  scientists  to  believe  that 
they  deserved  better  treatment  and  more  say  in  the  running  of  tne  Soviet 
system,  particularly  when  they  realized  that  the  USSR's  international  sta¬ 
tus  to  a  great  degree  depended  on  the  level  of  Soviet  science  and  tecnnol- 
ogy.  Residence  in  Moscow,  too,  may  have  been  a  factor  which  led  to  an  act 
of  dissidence:  most  of  the  arrests  of  writers  took  place  in  Moscow,  in¬ 
formation  about  dissidence  presumably  was  widely  circulated  in  Moscow,  in 
particular  since  foreign  Journalists  were  stationed  there,  and  Moscow,  as 
any  large,  international  center,  was  relatively  liberal,  so  the  environ¬ 
ment  was  conducive  for  dissent.  Jobs  at  Academy  of  Sciences  institutes, 
likewise,  provided  the  kind  of  liberal  environment  that  might  have  pro¬ 
duced  a  proclivity  toward  dissent. 


What  about  the  assertion,  made  by  many  scientists,  that  the  scientist's 
mode  of  thinking  is  incompatible  with  the  arbitrariness  evidenced  in  to¬ 
talitarian  regimes  and  politicians?  As  was  mentioned  in  the  introduction 
to  this  study,  to  prove  or  disprove  this  assertion  is  outside  the  scope  of 
the  study,  for  research  on  this  topic  would  require  data  on  all  scientists, 
not  Just  dissidents.  However,  the  special  nature  of  the  scientific  mind 
has  been  given  as  a  reason  for  dissidence  by  the  dissidents  themselves. 
Thus,  IiYuBARSKIY  explained  his  interest  in  "samizdat"  by  affirming  that 
in  the  very  nature  of  the  scientist  is  the  striving  to 
create  one's  own  opinion  about  a  problem. . .Ihe  scien¬ 
tist  cannot  take  any  opinion  or  other  from  the  side¬ 
lines.  The  essence  of  the  scientist  is  the  need  to 
inow  everything  oneself.^- 

0.  0SMAM0V  stated  that  "physics  doesn't  hinder  me,  rather,  it  helps  me  be 
a  citizen;"2  likewise,  PLYuShch  was  described  by  another  dissident  in  the 
following  maimer: 

The  lack  of  conformism  and  the  deep  intellectual  hon¬ 
esty  characteristic  of  PLYuShch  the  scientist  were 
characteristic  of  his  usual  behavior  in  life. 3 
What  these  dissidents  don't  explain  is  why,  if  the  mindset  of  the  scien¬ 
tist  causes  dissidence,  all  scientists  are  not  dissidents.  The  answer 
to  tnis  question  is  that  additional  motivations  and  psychological  factors 
are  necessary  to  make  the  "potential"  dissident  an  actual  one.  This  stua- 
y  has  provided  the  data  on  what  these  motivations  might  be. 


4.  What  does  all  this  mean? 

It  is  relatively  safe  to  conclude  that,  pending  an  act  of  God  in  tne 
rlrenlin ,  repression  in  the  USSR  will  continue  as  long  as  there  are  dis¬ 
sidents  and  dissidents  will  remain  active  as  long  as  there  is  repression. 
The  autnorities  have  been  unable  to  significantly  decrease  the  numbers  of 
scientific  dissidents,  in  particular,  from  1969  to  the  present,  regard¬ 
less  of  the  degree  of  persecution.  The  regime,  then,  is  faced  vitn  a  di¬ 
lemma:  should  it  maintain  its  tight  control  over  Soviet  scientists  and 
intellectuals,  and  risk  international  repercussions  in  matters  of  detente 
and  tecnnology  transfer  and  internal  disquiet  vitnin  the  scientific  com¬ 
munity,  or  should  it  give  in  to  some  of  the  human  rignts  demands  of  the 
scientists  to  gain  their  support  in  developing  Soviet  science  and  tech¬ 
nology,  vhich  would,  admittedly,  decrease  the  regime's  control  over  So¬ 
viet  society.  Obviously,  the  choice  is  not  a  simple  or  easy  one:  on  tne 
one  hand,  the  regime  needs  the  scientists  in  order  to  keep  the  USSR  strong 
tecnnologically;  on  the  other,  the  regime,  to  maintain  its  power  over  the 
Soviet  people,  cannot  share  its  power  or  allow  the  scientists  freedoms 
wnich  might  encroach  on  the  regime's  power  base.  Since  the  regime  would 
probably  accept  technological  backwardness  more  readily  than  a  loss  of  its 
power,  it  seems  likely  that  official  repression  of  scientific  dissidents 
will  continue,  probably  at  the  relatively  limited  level  of  the  post-1976 
period.  Any  greater  repression  of  dissident  scientists  would  probaoly  be 
count er-product i ve  in  terms  of  US-USSR  trade  and  detente.  As  it  is,  the 
Soviet  authorities  are  able  to  maintain  civil  relations  with  the  West  at 
the  same  time  they  are  refusing*  to  allow  their  scientists  even  a  modicum 
of  intellectual  and  individual  freedom. 

What  about  numbers  of  future  dissident  scientists?  Who  will  they  be? 
Who  are  their  future  leaders?  Some  projections  can  be  made  on  the  basis 
of  the  data  accumulated.  First  of  all,  in  terms  of  numbers,  it  can  be  as¬ 
sumed  that,  because  of  the  relatively  steady  nature  of  the  numbers  of  dis¬ 
sident  scientists  per  year  since  1969  and  the  number  of  scientists  who 
dissent  in  any  year  in  the  forseeable  future,  barring  a  significant  his¬ 
torical  event,  will  be  about  one  hundred.  Because  it  was  determined  above 
that  scientists  with  dates  of  birth  from  1930  to  1942  were  most  prone  to 
dissent,  it  might  be  that  with  the  passing  of  the  generation,  dissidence 
among  scientists  might  decrease  somewhat.  If  the  age  65  is  taken  as  an 
age  after  which  dissent  is  not  likely  to  occur,  for  reasons  of  mortality 
or  otherwise,  then  this  decrease  should  not  become  evident  until  tne  year 
2C0G.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  also  determined  above  that  a  scientist 
was  most  likely  to  dissent  between  the  ages  of  24  and  41.  If  this  is  tue 
case,  and  the  date  of  birth. correlation  with  dissidence  is  meaningful, 
then  there  should  have  been  an  increase  in  the  number  of  dissident  scien¬ 
tists  between  the  years  1954  and  1963,  particularly  from  19bl  to  197o,  when 
the  greatest  numbers  of  scientists  would  have  been  in  the  24-41  age  group. 
Clearly,  historical  circumstances  played  a  role  in  the  dissident  movenent, 
so  this  increase  is  not  tied  to  age  alone.  The  only  point  that  could  be 
made  here  is  that  there  might  be  a  gradual  decrease  in  the  numbers  of  11  s- 
sident  scientists  from  1976  to  1963,  after  which  there  might  be  a  signifi¬ 
cant  decrease.  Because  data  is  incomplete  after  1977  in  this  study,  tnousn 
no  definite  conclusion  can  be  drawn  on  this. 


The  prospective  dissident  scientist  should  conform  to  the  archetypical 
dissident  scientist  described  in  section  1  of  this  chapter:  he  vill  have 
an  advanced  degree  in  paysico-mathematical  sciences,  vill  work  at  an  Acad¬ 
emy  of  Sciences  institute  in  Moscow  as  a  Senior  Scientific  Associate  or 
Professor,  and  will  be  a  member  of  the  Party;  the  chances  are  great  that 
he  vill  have  been  brought  up  in  an  elite  family.  Obviously,  this  is  a 
gross  generalization,  but  it  is  a  starting  point. 

The  leaders  of  the  future  from  the  scientific  community  are  many  of  tne 
same  old  faces,  but  there  are  a  number  of  dissident  scientists  vho  have 
had  only  relatively  minor  roles  in  the  dissident  movement  up  to  tnis  point 
and  vho  may  rise  to  assume  higher  positions.  SAKhAROV  vill  continue  to  be 
the  most  influential  dissident  scientist,  even  if  the  Academy  of  Sciences 
removes  SAKhAROV  from  its  membership.  TVZRDOKnLZBOV ,  vho  returned  from  ex¬ 
ile  in  1978,  vill  conceivably  return  to  his  former  level  of  dissident  ac¬ 
tivity.  7.  VELIKANOVA,  vho  currently  heads  several  of  the  dissident  groups 
vill  probably  continue  to  play  a  major  role  in  toe  dissident  movement  un¬ 
less  she  is  arrested  and  prosecuted.  KOVALZV  and  ORLOV ,  upon  their  release 
from  confinement  in  1981  and  198b,  respectively,  vill  probably  return  to 
their  dissident  activities.  The  dissident  scientists  vno  may  ce  called 
upon  in  the  meantime  to  fill  in  for  CELOV,  KOVALEV  and  ShchARANSKIY  are 
and  0.  GOLD ' ShTEYN ,  all  of  whom  have  had  same  organizational  experience  in 
dissident  groups.  There  are  some  dissident  scientists  vho  have  never  as¬ 
sumed  leadership  roles,  but,  because  they  have  been  in  the  Soviet  dissi¬ 
dent  movement  almost  from  its  inception,  might  eventually  become  leaders 
of  dissident  groups:  DZEBAYeV^,  GASTEV,  GEKKIN,  PETRENKO,  LAVUT,  LISOV- 

Is  there  a  chance  that  dissident  scientists  would  ever  coalesce  into  an 
integrated  pressure  group,  representing  scientists?  After  all,  one  hun¬ 
dred  people  sharing  professional  Interests  and  goals  could  present  a  for¬ 
midable  front.  It  is  doubtful  that  this  would  occur  because  of  the  variety 
of  Weltanschauungen  evidenced  in  the  scientific  cocssunity,  from  ShAFAEE- 
VlCh's  Russian  chauvinism  a  la  Solzhenitsyn,  EEGEL'SON's  and  KAPITANChUK's 
unshakable  Christianity,  and  the  Jewish  refusenik's  simple  desire  to  emi¬ 
grate,  to  SAKhABOV's  democratic  humanism  and  RONKIN's  revolutionary  Marx¬ 
ism.  As  long  as  dissident  scientists  have  a  common  enemy  in  the  Soviet  re¬ 
gime,  however,  and  are  persecuted,  it  is  unlikely  that  different  vorla  out¬ 
looks  would  cause  one  scientist  to  undermine  the  position  of  another. 

5 .  Final  Words 

"I  have  came  not  to  praise  Caesar,  but  to  bury  him."  What  are  sons  of 
the  limitations  of  this  study?  First  of  all,  as  in  any  scientific  or  any 
pseudo-scientific  endeavour,  the  data  is  incomplete.  Official  Soviet  and 
even  "samizdat"  Soviet  sources  vere  not  able  to  provide  enougn  data  of  tne 
type  desired  to  completely  analyze  the  dissident  scientist  phenomenon.  It 
must  be  assumed  that  numerous  dissident  scientists,  even  those  vho  vere  of¬ 
ficially  reprimanded,  vere  not  known  to  the  compilers  of  toe  "samizdat" 



documents  and,  accordingly,  to  tha  author.  Anotner  shortcoming  is  that 
the  level  or  "degree"  of  commitment  to  dissent  activity  was  not  and  prob¬ 
ably  could  not  be  determined;  without  such  a  determination,  thougn,  tne 
signer  of  one  collective  protest  letter  assumes  the  same  numerical  weight 
as  does  a  SAKhAROV  or  ShchARANSKIY.  The  author  is  uncertain  how  such  a 
factor  could  be  meaningfully  determined.  Other  factors,  such  as  marital 
status,  career  aspirations,  or  previous  military  service,  mignt  have  bean 
as  relevant  to  the  causes  of  dissent  as  the  ones  chosen  for  this  study. 

The  author,  however,  was  limited  to  the  data  ava<i*bl*- 

The  author  makes  no  pretense  that  his  evaluation  of  tne  data  compiled 
is  complete.  This  study  was  designed  additionally,  to  be  a  vehicle  by 
which  the  biographical  data  could  be  presented.  Readers  with  access  to 
computers  will  undoubtedly  find  relationships  hidden  to  the  autnor  due  to 
the  number  of  variables  involved.  The  author  fully  recognizes,  though, 
that  such  relationships  evidenced  in  data  may  not  have  caused  the  dissi- 
dence  at  all;  in  other  words,  the  correlations  may  be  interesting  and 
fascinating  but  meaningless  in  terms  of  the  motivations  to  dissent.  The 
question  of  what  factors  were  relevant  and  what  factors  were  not  relevant 
must  be  left  to  the  psychologist  for  a  definitive  view. 

In  conclusion,  the  author's  goal  was  to  document  the  participation  of 
the  Soviet  scientist  in  the  dissident  movement.  He  theorised  that  the 
reasons  that  a  certain  scientist  dissented  could  be  found  in  that  scien¬ 
tist  1 s  biographical  data,  and  this  data  was  compiled.  If  the  theory 
turns  out  to  be  invalid,  the  data  will  not  be  tainted  in  the  least.  Ac¬ 
cordingly,  this  data  Is  offered,  to  other  analysts  to  play  with  ae  they 
please,  making  models  and  establishing  relationships.  While  the  autnor 
does  not  subscribe  to  the  view  that  a  secret  key  to  human  behavior  lies 
at  the  heart  of  every  collection- of  data,  hi  does  believe  that  such  studies 
as  the  present  one  are  useful,  heuristic  games  to  play  which  lead  to  the 
discovery  of  trends  not  immediately  obvious.  If  this  study  has  uncovered 
Just  a  few  of  these  trends,  the  author  will  consider  the  game  a  success. 


afpekdjz  i 

(Humber  of  Scientists  in  parentheses) 

Institute  of  ilathanatica  imari  Staklov,  Leningrad  (1) 

Institute  of  Organic  Chanistry  imani  Zelinskiy,  Moscow  (2) 

Institute  of  Physical  Problems  imani  e.I.  Vavilov,  Moscow  (l) 
tnsti.tu.te  of-Ehyaica^  Moicow  (3) 

Institute  of  Geology  and  Geochronology  of  the  Pre-Cambrian  Ira,  Leningrad  (1) 
Institute  of  Biological  Physios,  Pusnchino  (4) 

Institute  of  Physical  Chemistry,  Moscow  (2) 

Institute  of  Chemical  Physics,  Moscow  (6) 

Institute  of  ^lemanto-Crganic  Compounds,  Moscow  (3) 

Institute  of  Solid  State  Physics,  Moscow  (2) 

Institute  of  Molacular  Biology,  Moscow  (1) 

Institute  of  Higher  Nervous  activity  and  NeuroPhysiology,  Moscow  (2) 

Institute  of  Mathematics  Irani  Staklov,  Moscow  (10) 

Institute  of  Physics  of  th#  Atmosphere,  Moscow  (6) 

Institute  of  Zoology,  Leningrad  (1) 

Institute  of  Padioengineering  and  electronics,  Moscow  (1) 

Institute  of  Petrochemical  Synthesis  imeni  Topchiav,  Moscow  (3) 

Institute  of  Terrestrial  Magnetism,  Ionosphere  and  Hadiowave  Propagation,  * 
Krasnaya  Fakhra  (2) 

Institute  of  deaiconduotors,  Leningrad  (1) 

Institute  of  Control  Problems,  Moscow  (1; 

Institute  of  electrochemistry,  Moscow  (1) 

Institute  of  Plant  Physiology  imani  Timiryazav,  Moscow  (2) 

Institute  of  Psychology,  Moscow  (1) 

Computer  Centar,  Moscow  (1) 

Institute  of  Water  Problems,  Moscow  (1) 

Institute  of  Biology  of  Development  iaani  Kol'tsov,  Moscow  (3) 
Physico-Technicul  desearch  Institute,  Obninsk  (1) 

Institute  of  Physics  of  the  earth  iaani  shmidt,  Moscow  (1) 

Institute  of  Thsoratical  Physics  iaani  Landau,  Cfcernorolovka  (1) 

Institute  of  Applied  Ma them tic a,  Moscow  (4) 

All-Union  Institute  of  Scientific  and  Technical  Infomaticn,  Moscow  (6) 
Institute  of  Metallurgy  iaani  Baykov,  Moscow  (1) 

Institute  of  Chemistry  of  Oiliest**  imeiu  ^n»h#nshchikov,  Leningrad  (1) 
Leningrad  Physicc-Techniccl  Institute  iaani  loffa,  «enini_rad  (3) 

Institute  of  Cytology,  Leningrad  (1) 

Institute  oi'  ..arino  Iiolo;-y,  Vladivostok  (2) 

Institute  of  hiuh  lamps rntures,  Moscow  (1) 

Institute  0:  ..utoration  xeleaecnanics  (1). 

Inf-ti •  •*'  rroblscs  o'  Info ir..:i  .1  rransaisaion,  Moscow  (6) 


Insti'.uta  or  i  ctheruitica,  ..cvocicira*  (3) 
institute  oi‘  Clerical  Kinetics  ant  Corruption,  .icrosioirsk  (1) 
Institute  or  Automation  ana  Electrometry,  ..ovesioirsk  (1) 
Institute  or  semiconductor  rnysics,  JicvocitircK  (1) 

Institute  or  Catalysis,  iiovcsibirsk  (1)  ' 

Computer  Canter,  *.ovosicirsk  (2) 

Institute  or  Physics  imeni  Kirenakij,  Krasnoyarsk  (1) 
institute  or  Hydrodynamics,  iiovosihirsk  (1) 

AClDS-tt  OF  CCI-l.C^a.  UkraSR 

Institute  of  Mechanics,  Kiev  (1) 

Institute  or  ioology,  &iov  (4) 

Institute  or  Mathematics,  Kiev  (2) 

Institute  or  Physical  Chord 0 try  Irani  Pisnrshevskij,  Kiev 
Institute  of  Cybernetics,  Kiev  (l) 

Institute  of  Biology  of  Southern  oeas  inenl  Kovalevski j ,  -Sevastopol  (1) 
Institute  \jf  semiconductors,  Kiev  (1) 

Uudear  Research  Institute,  Kiev-  (1) 

of  ^ci2i:mn. 

it ssxr 

Institute  or  nlectronis  and  Ccmputinf-;  Tacnnclo-'y,  Higa  (1) 
Institute  or  Polymer  Mechanics,  Riga  (1) 

Institute  of  nuclear  Physics,  Riga  (1) 

Institute  or  Organic 'synthesis,  ;iiga  (l) 

lorevan  Institute  of  Physics  (1) 

Byurakan  Astrophysical  observatory,  Byumkan  (1) 

Institute  of  Cybernetics,  Tbilisi  (1) 

Institute  or  Physical  and  Technical  Problems  of  Pover  Engineering,  Kaunas  ( 1  ] 
ABgg  0t~  aCS..C5a.  MoldSSR 

Institute  or  Oncology,  Kishinev  (1)  ' 


ifunarr  qf  m_sicai  aci^ncas.  pssr 

Institute  of  Epidemiology  and  Microbiology  iaeni  Ganalsy,  Moscow  (3) 
Institute  of  Virology  iaeni  Ivanovski j ,  Moscow  (1) 

Institute  of  Medical  Radiology,  Moscow  (1) 

Institute  of  Biological  and  Medical  Chemistry,  Moscow  (2) 


CfflTiii on  Inventions  ana  Discovs.ies  oi  the  Council  of  •luj^t.jrs 

Scientific  Research  Institute  of  the  Connittae  on  XaventionSylSoscov  (l) 

r.rtwr!.ttee  for  St-^ndarig 

All-Union  Scientific  Research.  Institute  of  Metrology  iasni  Mendeler, 

AU-UniS^entdUic  Research  Institute  of  *etrolo«y  iaeni  mrnuM*, 
Leiilugraa  ( 1 ) 

a~— kgMissas  foT>  atonic 

Institute  of  Theoretical*  and  Experimental  Physics,  Moscow  (7) 
Joint  Institute  for-  Muelear  Research,  Dubna  (2) 

Institute  of  Physics  and  Power  Engineering,  Obninsk  (1) 
Institute  of  Atonic  Energy  iaeni  Kurchatov,  Moscow  (7) 
Institute  of  High  Energy  Physics,  Serpukhov  (1) 

W-T™T':  HESaSM 

fltatgfag  ?CInstruaent  SateSAfig 

All-Union  Scientific  Rosaarch  Institute  of  Developing  iioncesbruuuive 
|  Methods  and.  Instrument*  for  quality  Control,  Kishinev  (3) 
[Scientific  Research  Institute  of  Introscopy,  Moscow  (i) 

Mlaiaty.-  of  the  Defense  Industry 

State  Institute  of  Optics  ineni  Vavilov,  Leningrad  (1) 

!:iniltr~  ‘;f  the  Gas  I.idu.-rtrr 

Ali—InicnScientific  Research  Institute  of  Main  Pipeline 
C  nstructicn,  Moscow  (D 



Scientific  Research  Institute  of  Plastics,  Moscow  (1) 

Leningrad  Scientific  Research  Institute  of  Polyner  Plastics,  Leningrad  ( 
Scientific  Research  Institute  of  the  Rubber  Industry,  Moscow  (1) 
Scientific  Research  Institute  of  Physico-ChaEistry  Irani  Xarpov,  Moscovi 

«t  rteelaev 

m-TTn-i  nn  Scientific  He  search  Institute  of  GaoPhysical  Methods  of 
Prospecting,  Leningrad  (2) 

XLC-tiniod'Sciantifio  "He search  Institute  or  Geology,  Lafllagfad 
All-Union  Scientific  Research  Institute  of  Geophysical  Methods 
of  Prospecting,  Moscow  (1) 

All-Union .Scientific  Research  Institute  of  Nuclear  Geophysics  and 
Geochemistry,  Moscow  (1) 

f^rrf  n+.-r-r  of  AgrtcultUTW 

Moscow  Institute  of,  Agricultural  Saginaara  Goryachkin,  Moscow 

MLS$g  of  Petrolaua  Extraction  Industry 

All-Union  Scientific  Research  Institute  of  Patrochanical  Processes, 
Leningrad  (1)  1 

mnl*±TT  nr 

Central  Scientific  Research  Institute  of  Disinfection,  Moscow  (l) 
Moscow  Institute  of  'Vaccines  *nd  ear a  imeni  Machnikov,  Moscow  (i) 
All-Union  Scientific  Research  Institute  of  Medical  Instruments 
and  Iquipsant,  Moscow  (2) 

Mini sxi—  or  Richer  Education 

Mosocw  Institute  of  Coaetructiwn  engineering  iaeni  iiuybyshev, 
Moscow  (2) 

Moscow  State  University,  Moscow  (33) 


UaLsiiz  a£  '-^Unu.  ggaaS 

Odessa  ^tate  Medical  Institute  ineni  Pirogov,  Odessa  (1) 
Ministry  of  Health.  SjFJI 

Stats  Institute  of  Cacology,  Moscow  (1) 

'■j  -  -  str’f  a  t  Ml  Aar  Education  *  R£isz?* 

mrStokJSaSSF*  <’> 

Laninersd.  -tat#  University,  Leningraa  (2) 

Moscow  Institute  of  aviation  Technology,  Moscow  1) 

'•’oscow  Institute  ox’  Chemical  Technology,  .*,oscow  (1) 

Moscw  Institute  'of  Fine  Chemical  Technology  iaeni  Lomonosov, 

Moscow  (2)  •  ^ 

Moscow  Higher  Technical  school  iaaai  Bauman,  Moscow  (1) 

1  Moscow  Phjrsiso-Tachnical  Institute,  Moscow  (3) 

Moscow  state  Pedagogical  Institute  imeni  Lenin,  Moscow  (4) 

■  Gorki*  state  University,  Gorki j  (3) 

Saratov  State  University,  Saratov  (1) 

Novosibirsk  state  University,  Novosibirsk  (2) 

Ural  Polytechnics!  Institute,  Sverdlovsk  (1) 

Kalinin  Pedagogical  Institute,  Kalinin  (l) 
r«Hwte  State  University,  Kalinin  (1) 

Ministry  of  Higher  Sducatjga,  UkrSSR- 

Kiev  Technological  Institute  of  light  Industry,  Kiev  0) 
Kiev  State  University  (5) 

U2hgorod  State  Unireraity,  Uzhgorod  (1) 

Khar'kov  State  University,  Khar’kov  (i) 


M-iai  rtr-r  of  Education.  LatSSR 

Latvian  State  University,  Riga  (7) 

Ministry  of  51 char  education ^HtSaa 
Vilnius  itate  University,  Vilnyus  (2) 

Ministry  of  iiiAar  Uducatioh.  HstSSH 

Tartu  wtata  University,  Tartu  (1) 

Ministry  of  Ufrhar  Sduaa  ion  UssSH 

Samarkand  etata  University,  nonarkand  (2) 
Tashkent  -tata  University,  Tashkent  (1) 

r.c-.m  '..‘lots  A-:l  if  .’ill  n-  tlcn 

.«clxntlNlc  ..asatrcu  Institute  of  seismic  inccr-mect  -ui._cin;, 
initio  -Il-Uific  .^search  Institute  of  the  Fishing  Industry, 
tllimnl..- .  -cicntific  -«ss*rca  Institute  ox”  Petr-  Ijua  ana  Gas, 

Saratov  (i) 
2i«a  (2) 
Moscow  (1) 

115  ‘ 



sissies:;!  scmnisis  \cnvs  i::  the  semi  dissiseit 

IXfJESLI  AS  0?  1977-73  (EZCLUSIIIG  K-UGHES  TKSOUGE  S.'-ELI  1979) 

;.ane  ('Tsars  in  dissident  novenent) 



;;ci;cs?S2Ltfa  ( 1968-77) 

(1970-  ) 



2.  H’TShTLZ?. 


2--  TEL*  ISLS7 

3  naim; 
3EGILI  * 

3.  3SSLEI 
I.  3SZLP 

bcloixl;  j 






riy!T^T?!i-i  I  f  .rAi 



jTteel’ seise; 



G.  GCL’DShlEZi; 

I.  GCL'DShTSr; 

GCL’7  'TTD 






£U*P  CV 


ll«  ill. ‘II 

*w.*4*! I  —  3  . 








1X7  ALEV  # 








TsELSSh  j 

KUShll  *527 








U3C2hiT0  4 


























































ShchARAiTSEIT  //(1973-77) 












in  enile 

r/  in  labor 

carp  or  ps7chintric  hospital 











































rag?  nr  w 















































The  following  abbreviations  be  used  in  the  footnotes:  SDS  (Scbrnnlve 
dokanantov  «aizd»ta)  ▼  (volume),  £TS  (K hnonlk.  teiniehahikh  eobitiT/Chronicl 
of  Current  Events)  #  (issue),  ZZP  CBgfflUSfi  «»shchit7  nrev  v  SSSR/Chronicla  « 
Human  Sights  in  the  USSR) ,  AS  ( 'rkhiv  semisdata) ,  SG2  fftwwteirfyjt  g~.zhd?na 
sashchishchsvut  nolodvkh  literg.torov) .  US  gtoSiZ T»  *nc 

1-iS  (Material?  samlzdata). 

1.  MS  41/75  .IS  2314  pi  (the  statement  is  about  SQV’LEV) . 

2.  ARTsIMOVICh,  at  the  1963  Pugvash  Conference  in  Dubrovnik,  albert  Parry, 
Tha  Heir  Class  Divided  (Sav  fork:  MacMillan,  .1966),  p305. 

3.  ^nH«  Lubr&no  and  John  Berg,  "Aeadaay  Scientists  in  tha  US'  and  USSR: 

Background  Characteristics,  Institutional  and  Regional  Mobility, *  in  John  R. 
Thomas  and  Ursula  M.  £ruse-Taucieims(  editors) ,  Soviet  Science  ?.nd  Technology; 
Soma stie  and  Foreign  Perspective a  (Washington,  D.C.:  The  George  Washington 
llniversity7  1977).  pp101-140.  »  . 

4.  Parry,  p252.  Penfield  found,  incidentally,  that  the  greatest  number  of 
dissidents  in  his  study  from  one  occupational  group  was  contained  in  tha 
technocrat-engineer  group  (31?) .  He  found  that  21%  of  tha  dissidents  ware  fror 
the  scientist  group.  If  only  a  third  of  Soviet  engineers  are  "true"  engineer! 
as  Parry  suggests,  than  it  would  be  the  scientists  who  compose  tha  single 
largest  occupational  group  among  dissidents.  Gary  I.  Penfield,  Tb«  Chnnnicla  e 
Current  Brents:  A  Content  ^oulTai a  ( Garni sch:  US  *rsy  Russian  Institute,  1973) 

5.  Fredrick  Sarghoorn,  Detente  »nd  the  Democratic  Movement  In  the  USSR 
(Hew  lork:  The  Free  Press,  1976),  p6. 

SteBlar  1 

1.  Chores  Medvedev,  Soviet  Science  (New  lork:  Norton,  1978),  pS9. 

2.  3arghoorn,  p28. 

3.  XTS  #15,  pp15-l6. 

4.  SDS  v3  5S163  ?19. 

5.  SDS  v29  .*iS16l1  pp67-69. 

6.  ARTsIMOVICh,  S.'PITs*.,  LXIJTCVICh,  ii'ISKU,  S,'Sh*RC7,  TAMM.  SDS  v4  ’S273  F 



7.  SDS  v9  AS667  pS. 

8.  Icadesdciana  (physicist a)  GEZ2CRG,  ZEL'DOVICh,  LZQUTOVICh,  IHGD^L, 
S-M 07,  TAiii,  (chanist)  mUBZaflls,  (biologist)  AST  AURCV,  and  (biochamist) 
EDGED*  GARDT.  SDS  v3  3-SI  59  ppl-2. 

?.  Academicians  GIHZ30RG,  KAPITaA,  KEUETaBTs,  LEGUTOVICh,  SAKhABCV, 
and  ZZL'DCVICh,  corresponding  member  GEL'PAHD,  and  scientists  LEVHI,  IAI*-3SKH 
A.  XaGLCi,  sad  DCSRBShHI.  SDS  v23  AS1156  pp8-9. 

10.  SDS  v3  AS165  pi. 

11.  SDS  v3  AS168  ppl-5. 

12.  Karol  Van  HetRave  (editor),  Dear  Comrade!  P»yal  Lit vinov  «r>A  the  Voice  a 

,  » 

of  Soviet  Citizens  In  Dissent  (New  Xork*  Pitanan,  1969),  px. 

ShUSISR,  ShcbSGLQV,  V..  STEEL*  HAS,  G.  EZDEL'llAS.  SDS  v2  AS10T  pp31—32. 


SDS  v2  AS107  pp 32-33. 

1!*  Hotywrg*.B|ftMrg  Q*  Stalin;  Diaaidenca  and  the  Soviet  Regime 


1953-70  (ithieal  Cornell  University,  1972),  p330 

16.  GEL’P'ED,  KDLDZSh,  P.  ECVIZCV,  RCSSCTL'D,  Sh.AP AREVICh.  and  A.  r^r.T.raf. 
SDS  vl  ’.SIS  ppl-2. 

17.  n/EEffl.'.Ia,  VIL»XaMS,  A.  7SLIKAK0VA,  X.  7SLEUX7  A,  cr^mr  IIEZLCS, 
SDS  vl  A SI  pp3-4. 

13.  SDS  n  ADI 7  ppl-4. 

19.  ’  <-.13010,  RRZaDTESK  '•  T» , VA3ILE7SZXX,  TCL’PET,  GEKKEI,  GERSliCTIGb,  G2I3, 

TJTA3S2E,  TEi’CbEV,  TUPITalll,  V.  TURChIK,  K.  TDRChlil,  USPSL’SKU,  F'DEIeVA, 

KhAZ’ECT,  ShiiXI,  ShUSTER,  ShchZSRIII,  ShchEGICV,  V.  EZDEL’M'E,  G.  ESDEL'li’JI, 
SZRCIeuhilCVSSII,  ULITsKAXa,  7EDGBSDZC,  Sh’PIRC,  SUShEV,  and  SCTDA.  SDS  vl  ’.S2  ppl— 6. 

20.  'KHC7,  22RG,  RCRISC7,  VASSEDir::,  GLADKII,  2,‘Kh  ’20V,  ZASLAVSEIZ,  EUL'ZCV, 

..  Khil’ITSC:,  SCZGLC7,  SEDZaChm,  JET,  ZJOI.AII,  ShRIPLOVICh,  and  Sh  'BAT.  i  physics 

--archer  at  *  physics  -nd  mathematics  secondary  school,  IIA2DCR7,  also  signed. 

3-.S  vl  'S21  ppl—  2. 


2i.  •;:L:x::cv-L-c:rc'.ich(  bsdzudlit,  iCvshsriY,  bcxct*,  xsg ■?-,  ve:33G, 
S2.*2*S»,  G37ICh,  *.  GLTTTICh,  3137,  DU! ‘3UHG,  Z'::ChZ3C,  2U2SC7S3I,  2731:.', 

s'-a.’flCT,  i*a.u:c7.-.,  eisissr-scv,  ssaxuosxasia,  isdx-stsp’::  v*,  :mxsh, 

::€»I2  '3IE,  KCSTCVAXa,  S.  ITO'/IitL'V,  ?CS3CV£L?Ia,  PCSVXaUSEXZ,  213D OVICh,  HCDIGEC 
SGlADOV*,  33S0I,  SKflLQE,  fi-2SJa3I!07,  S0XCLC7,  TAT'RSm,  TCVSTGZh*,  ChMLXc 
sffi,  shsax shinar,  ara,  xusn.%  *.  isGia:.  sds  vi  js7 2  ppi-6. 

vZShSISKTT,  G2X33SDV,  ZhAD'lE,  GIdGCa'37,  ShCTL*,  3EUXa3X,  2KD*3»,  TXaGA! 
u'.TTIXeinX,  LXaaEI,  TCLPTGC,  SESL’CY*.  SDS  vi  »S46  ppl-4. 


ciiol’d,  vrrushim,  ochrgd,  kits,  wexiiae,  pcsrmov,  acsshisni,  acchvia, 

ZLCLEISHT,  PTaTST  sKU-Sh  TISD,  P'l’HDDCV,  SMIB210V,  701111,  ShILOV,  I.XaGLCK, 


jalauh.*',  3AR.y:ovich,  xssaligc,  bbsshj,  ajifChgrsm,  38C3taUsam>,  wiles* 

TISPtfhOTSSU,  VIL’TfiiS,  GASTSV,  ESXSTI,  ShBSIC?'L,  and  gaophyglolst  PC^TaPCL 
SDS  vi  <S20  ppl-4. 

24.  Only  three  were  identified!  KDPCSh,  LXuSTSaiHZ  and  I-IEHShGV.  SDS  vi  AS20  i 

25.  SDS  v20  'S1006  p3. 

26.  SDS  v20  '.SI  006  p8. 

27.  SDS  v24  ’SI 250  p79. 

28.  laid. 

29.  SDS  v20  *S1006  p7. 

30.  SDS  v20  AS1006  pp7-8. 

31.  Harrison  Salisbury  (editor),  Sakharov  Soe«ka  (Hew  Xorkx  Hnopf,  1974),  pi 5. 

32.  SDS  ?3  'S200  ppl-27. 

33.  o*S  vl  '.S70  ppl-6. 


34.  SDS  72  AS108  ppl-4. 

35.  SDS  728  i31 524  p5. 

36.  SDS  73  AS163  p21. 

TIMAChSV,  DZhBOEV,  KOVAIEV,  and  BUDAKOV.  SDS  74  AS  288  pp1-3« 

38.  SDS  Yl  AS  37  pi. 

39.  XZP  #1  pll. 

AO.  SDS  Yl  AS96  pi,  AS  97  p2. 

41.  SDS  76  AS  469  pi  4. 

42.  SDS  74  AS  274  ppl-19. 

43.  SDS  Yl  AS44  ppl-2. 

44*  SDS  t6  AS383  ppl-24. 

45.  p6. 

46.  rrs  #2  pi9. 

47.  US  #5  P48,  SDS  Yl  AS57  ppl-2. 

48.  SDS  730  AS3008  p259. 

DVQHKD.  (See  Notes  for  Chapter  in). 

(See  notes  for  Chapter  HI). 

51.  TsEKbMISIHENKD,  PQtCZN.  (See  notes  for  Chapter  HI}. 

52.  ULEHKO,  BEREZANSKII,  SKQROKhOD.  (See  notes  for  Chapter  III). 



v2  '-SI  26  p4< 

55.  2DS  *34  p5. 

56.  SDS  vJO  AS65To  ?p1-5. 

57.  SDS  v9  'S624  ppl-3. 

5S.  Cli’XISffl,  TVSXEZhLZDOV,  TCL'PE,  TsUSSS:^,  PJGSSI'L*.  SDS  T7  -S510  pi. 

59.  STS  v7  *5512  pi. 

60.  3*2.’3.'6X7,  PS72ISI,  L2PS0VSZH,  OlEICtieSTSL'Ia,  TsUEESLLUI,  3IG3Sl-i.U:, 

t settle;,  pcl'skit,  Dismi.r,  tbeydii;,  il'-leeh.  sds  v9  AS624  pp2-3. 

61.  IcShH:07,  DZhE-ZLE?,  K071LZV,  LOT,  PLZuShch,  DTuITXjuISEIT,  2DD*.KCV, 

TEI'ChEV.  SDS  vl  AS103  pi. 

62.  SDS  t2  AS110  pi. 

63.  TCS  33U  pi 1. 

64.  SDS  T!2  AS1629  p2. 


SDS  v4  *S252  p2. 

66.  aCSTMSg!.  SDS  t4  '5253  p3. 

SJS'JSCT,  ZClAChEV,  DDCZhEO.  SDS  V4  '-S2C9  ppl-2. 

63.  SDS  -75  .’S360  ppl-15. 

59.  SDS  vG  *S604  ppl-6. 

70.  O11I7  ten  of  the  scientists  were  identified}  S*VEh.‘-3C7,  T‘111,  LSCIDTCTICh, 
lUSChET,  •  X* t'ShULIS «,  D7C3S3  - *,  liiJV  *L4V ,  Ch'EIDZE,  VCL*PE  snd  Dungpxim  biologist 
2m  SDS  v6  ‘S417  ?2. 

71.  jaifi.,  pi. 

72.  SDS  to  'S434  ppl-2. 

73.  Dlioras  Ijdredev  -nd  Dc“  iisdvedeT,  *  Question  of  l>dnaggfDev  loriii  Dhoof  1971), 


7^..  ««otn o  ars ,  p300» 



SDS  -76  AS406  p2. 

76.  SDS  t25  iS1460  p552. 

77.  ETS  #15  pp15-l6. 

PQDFZaPGL*  SKU,  KRISTI  and  LAVUT.  SDS  77  AS475  p2. 

HODAEDV.  SDS  t7  AS49B  p2. 

ao.  sds  iob  rrs  #17  p 39- 


82*  SDS  t23  AS  1176  ppl-3. 

83.  IMA, 

84.  SDS  79  AS6S2pp3_8. 

85.  lUd. 

86.  SDS  721  AS1022  ppl-5. 


SDS  79  AS696  p  2-3. 

88.  SDS  724  AS1283  pi. 

MS  11/74  AS1552  pp5-6. 

90.,  SDS  t2S  AS1550  p336. 

91.  SDS  728  AS1422  p387. 

92.  SDSv28  AS1524  ppl 15-129. 

93.  SDS  728  AS1588  pi. 

94.  XZP  #31,  p30. 

95.  XZP  #31,  p22. 

96.  XZP  #31,  P3o . 


97.  SDS  t25  AS1445  ppl-2. 

98.  SDS  v24  181244  pi. 

99.  80S  rlOB  ZT8  #26  p35. 

SAKhAROV.  SD6  *24  181196  ppl-2. 

101.  Saas  people  as  those  in  Note  100  nrlnna  ShIKhlSOVXCh.  SOS  v24  t£> .  ,97  ppl-2. 

102.  SOS  725  1S1401. 

103.  SDS  725  181418  pp336-338. 

104.  808  725  181418  p318. 

105.  MS1 1/74  181552  p2. 

106.  It  least  nineteen  of  the  forty  era  natural  scientists*  physicists  Baser, 
Bogolyubor,  VonsoraJdy,  Logunov,  Obukhov,  Prokhorov,  Tuohkevioh,  biologists 
XBQKL'GIRDT  and  ThW’ri"J  chemist  a- Neaaeyanov,  Ovchinnikov,  Oparin,  Semenov, 

Spitsjm,  mathematicians  Keldysh ,  Sobolev,  Tikhonov,  and  engineers  Kotel'nikov 
and  Patou.  Pravda  August  29  1973*  p3. 

107.  808  v25  181463  p560. 

108.  SDS  v25  181455  p517. 

109.  SOS  v25  AS1463  p56l. 

TEMKIN.  SDS  725  AS14S5  p  710. 

111.  SDS  725  AS1464  P567. 

112.  SDS  728  AS1559  p446. 

113.  SDS  v25  p721. 

114.  SDSt25  1S1490  pp719-720. 

115.  SDS  v25  181491  p721. 

116.  KOVALEV,  LITVINOV,  T.  VELIKANOVA.  SDS  v25  AS1497  ppl-2. 

117.  SDS  v25  AS1478  ppl-2. 



118.  MS  11/74  AS1594  ppl-7. 

119.  Cm  philosopher  lari  Popper  also  sav  the  similarity  bstvasn  ths 
scientist  and  ths  artists 

Ths  scientist*  and  ths  artist,  far  frcm  being  engaged  in 
oppossd  or  incompatible  activities,  ars  both  trying  to  extend 
our  understanding  of  experience  by  uss  of  creative  Imagination 
subjected  to  eritieal  control,  and  so  both  ars  using  irrational  as 
well  as  rational  faoultiss.  Both  ars  exploring  ths  unknown  and 
trying  to  artioulats  ths  search  and  ics  findings.  Both  ars  seekers 
aftsr  troth  who  males  Indlapsnaibls  uss  of  intuition. 

Proa  this,  it  oould  bs  suggsstsd  that  a  asisntist  is  unabls  to  work  in  ths 
parochial  and  eonstrainsd  environment  into  which  ths  Soviet  anthoritiss  wish 
to  placs  him,  and  that  seisnes  cannot  dsrslop  in  a  system  which  denies 
creative  Imagination  or  places  limitations  on  it.  Bryan  Mages  Popper  (Glasgow 
Fontana,  1976),  pp68-69. 

120.  Ths  other  scientists  wars  AL'BHEKhl,  HEL00ZEBGV,  and  QBLOVSKXX. 

SDS  v28  AS1501  pi. 


122.  t.  mmaovA,  gaseef,  am,  kotaucv,  latdt,  luvusot.  pomaPQL'sm, 

50CAED7,  ,wm»mrTiTnprm,J  UHiCbST,  ShUSTSR.  SDS  v29  iS1652  p32oa. 

123.  MB  41A5  AS  2314  ppl-2.  , 

124.  SDS  v29  AS1651  ppl-2. 


X»  #13  P6. _ \ 

126.  SDS  v29  AS1611  pp67-69. 

127.  ZZP  #13  p28. 

128.  JTS  #34  P5. 

129.  ZZP  #31  p35. 

130.  rrs  #34  p5. 

131.  XZP  #14  PP9-12. 

■!32.  US  #34  PP3-4. 

133.  T.  mmiI07A,  PGD^aPGL>Sm,  XOSTEHHJA,  3AKMHJ,  LAVUT,  TDRChlN,  IgTCN, 
A.  7ELHAD0V,  LISOVSKAXa.  MS41/75  AS2314  p3. 


■134.  XZP  #18  ,p5. 

ShUhANOVTCh,  M.  AZ2EL*  •  MS  41/76  AS2756  p2. 

136.  ZZP  #14  PP31-51. 

137.  ZZP  #14  p5. 


11519/75  AS2130  plj  LAUDA  ZZP  #15  p7|  TUBChIN,  ORLOV,  AL'HREKhT  I2P  #15  p9. 

139.  nnraH .  29  April  1976,  p5. 

140.  ZZP  #14  PP7-8. 

141.  ZZP  #29  p24. 

142.  Barghoora,  pp66-72, 

143.  US  #38  p6|  Irwatira.  26  October  1975,  p3* 

144.  US  #38  p6. 

145.  US  #40  pp117-119. 

146.  See  Chapter  II. 

and  K08TEHINA.  MS34/76  AS2644  p4« 

148.  ZTS  #42  pp^- 9  • 


150.  IIS  #43  plOO. 

151.  ZTS  #41  pTO. 

S ALOVA,  and  M.  A23EL*.  MSI 9/77  .1329 66  ppl-2. 




KRISTI.  AS3051  PP25-32. 

154.  rrs  #44  PP 17-22/ 

155.  Ihid..  p23. 

156.  ITS  #47  pp2Q-21. 

157.  ITS  #47  pp21.  . 

158.  IMd- 


XZP  #30  p7. 

160.  rrs  #44  p25. 

161.  IMd..  p26. 

162.  rrs  #46  pp 29-30;  CS  #45  pp20-21;  US  #47  p26,  28-29. 

163.  rrs  #46  PP27-28. 


I.  GUREVICh,  la.  Talrlln,  V.  Eydus,  V.  Gertaherg,  and  la.  PargamanDc. 

MS27/77  AS3035  ppl-2, 

165.  XZP  #31  pi 6, 

166.  ITS  #47  pp92-93. 

KOVNER,  GIL'DENGQRN.  MS2/78  AS3099  p3. 

168.  XIS  #47  p139. 

169.  rrs  #48  P31. 


170.  rrs:#4S  p3i. 

171 .  rrs  #49  pp7-9. 

172.  US  m  PP31-33. 

173.  XZP  #31  pp25-28. 

cAaat«  g,t 

1.  SDS  -72  AS126  p4. 

2.  Ibid. 

3.  SDS  t6  AS433  p4. 

4-  Ibid..  p6. 

5.  MS41/75  AS23U  p3. 

6.  SDS  730  AS254S  p4. 

7.  SDS  t6  ASU8  p2. 

8.  Ibid. 

9.  SDS  716. 

10.  SDS  724  4S1270  pi. 

11.  SDS  716  AS660a  p82. 

12.  SDS  716  4S657b  p4. 

13.  SDS  724  AS1264  pi. 

14.  SDS  724  AS1258  pi. 

15.  SDS  725  AS  i486  pi. 

16.  XZP  #3  pi 4. 

17.  SDS  728  AS1501  pi. 

18.  SDS  730  AS2371  pp145-146. 


19.  SDS  v30  pi 44. 

20.  SDS  v3Q  4S2401  pp147-158. 

21.  SDS  730  AS2542  p5. 

22.  SDS  v30  AS2903  p19j  SDS  73O  pi . 

23.  tZP  y26  pp26-35. 

24.  US  #40  ppl  18-119. 

25.  XbU»  pi  19. 

26.  SDS  730  p39. 

27.  SDS  730  AS2740  p46. 

28.  SDS  730  AS284la  pp65-66. 

29.  SDS  730  p73. 

30.  SDS  730  AS3059  pp78-81. 

31.  SDS  730  AS2839  p44. 

32.  SDS  730  AS284U  p66. 

33.  SDS  730  AS 30 59  p80. 

34.  XZP  #25  p45. 

35.  SDS  730  AS3136  pp6l 6-617. 

36.  SDS  730  p173. 

37.  Jtid. 

38.  SDS  713  AS600  pp4S-50. 

39.  SDS  713  AS601  p67. 

40.  SDS  t9  AS625  pi. 

41.  SDS  724  AS1212  P3. 

42.  Albert  AxeToank,  SoTlet  Pl3sent;  a.  Java  and  Detente  (New  lork: 

?ranklin  ¥atts,  1975),  p45« 

43.  Intaraatj-on^l  Herald  Tribune.  February  14  1979. 

44.  * 


45.  SDS  728  AS1522;  MS27/74  AS1758;  1IS24/75  AS2099;  SDS  v13  AS1673  pp26-27. 

46.  XZP  #19  p  p42. 

47.  SDS  v13  AS1673  p24. 

48.  SDS  v28  AS1522  pi. 

49.  MS24/75  AS2156  pi. 

50.  AS1788 

51.  11S5/75  AS1964  p7. 

52.  MS32/74  AS1789?  MS27/74  AS1758;  AS1897}  AS2094. 

53.  MS32/74  AS1897  pi. 

54.  MS2 4/75  1S2156  pi. 

55.  MS24/75  AS2154  pi. 

56.  ITS  #45,  pp80-81. 

57.  International  Herald  Trlfanm.  30-31  December  1978  P3. 

58.  XZP  #19  p51. 

59.  XZP  #19  p4S. 

60.  MS21/77  iS2953;  ppl-6:  MS21/77  AS2956  ppl-2. 

61.  rrs  #30  pi  12;  rrs  #37  pp77-79. 

G.  GQL’DShlEZN,  TsINQBER,  SALANSKU,  GURFEL*.  MS21/77  AS2953  p6. 

63.  LERNER,  LEVICh,  ROZENShlEZN.  MS21/77  AS2953  p6. 

64.  IMd. 

65.  ITS  #37,  pp77-79;  XTS  #30  pi 12. 

66.  International  Herald  Trihm».  March  6  1979  p4. 

67.  SDS  c12  AS 379  ppl-4. 


63.  SOS  v12  AS1877  p38. 

69.  rrs  #8  p28. 

70.  SOS  n2  AST79  OP27-30. 

71.  Ibid. 


72.  SOS  v12  AS379  PP31-33. 

73.  SOS  vl  AS85  pi. 

74.  SOS  712  AS379  P49. 

75.  SOS  v12  AS 379  p51. 

76.  SOS  v12  AS379.pp49-51. 

77.  SOS  v3  AS192  pi. 

78.  SOS  Yl  AS4D.  pi. 

79.  SOS  vl  AS45  p3. 

80.  SOS  y12  AS1629  ppl-2. 

81.  Ibid. 

82.  SDS  y12  AS1879  p3. 

-83.  SDS  v29  AS1629  ppl-2. 

84.  rrs  #49  p72. 

85.  rrs  #48  pioi. 

86.  rrs  #31  pi3i. 

87.  SOS  y30  AS2862a  pp1C9-110. 

88.  SDS  v30  p107. 

89.  Ibid. 

90.  AS3142. 

91.  SDS  v25  AS1409,  AS1410. 

92.  SDS  y23  AS1163  pi. 


93.  SDS  v7  AS525  pi 

94.  John  B.  Dualop,  The  New  Bmgfaa  BaTolutioMrliig  (Belmont,  Haas*  Nordland, 
1976),  pi 3. 

95.  Ibid..  p86. 

96.  Ibid..  pp87-88. 

-97.  SDS  723  451163  p3. 

98.  Ibid.,  pi 2. 

99.  Ibid.,  pi. 

100.  Dunlop,  p235. 


101.  Dualop,  p96. 

102.  Ibid..  pp93-94. 

103.  Ibid..  P103. 

104*  SDS  723  ^SH63  pl3. 

105.  SDS  725  AS1460 

106.  Hothberg,  p328. 

107.  Georgs  Senders  (editor).  Samizdat:  Voicea  of  _tha  SoTlet  Opposition 
(New  Torks  Monad,  1974),  p235« 

108.  SDS  71  AS88 

109.  SDS  t8  AS5 64j  ITS  #15  pi 5 J  US  #14  pp17-l8. 

110.  Sanders,  p4l6. 

111.  SDS  722  AS1085  p3. 

112.  SDS  722  AS1085  p5. 

113.  Ibid..  p5. 

114.  SDS  79  45684  p9. 

115.  SDS  t9  45684  pp52-54. 

116.  SDS  724  AS1191  p5. 

117.  SDS  725  .SSI 394  ppl-3. 

118.  MS10/75  AS2054  pp4^-6. 

119.  Ibid. ^  pp4-6. 

'120.  pp4-6. 

121.  Ibid..  p5. 

122.  rrs  #8  p37. 

123.  MS10A5  AS2054  p5. 

124.  LZS  #35  1968  p35. 

125.  MS10/75  AS2054  P4. 

126.  Ibid. 

127.  MS41/75  1S23U  p3  (footnota  2). 

128.  Palo  Sovalava.  p40. 

129.  Ibid..  p41.  * 

130.  MS38/76  AS2633  p2;  AS3051  pjl. 

131.  MS41/75  AS2314  p3. 

132.  MS38/76  1S2633J  MS41/75  AS23U  P3;  HS19/Y7  AS2966  p2;  AS3 051. 

133.  LZS  #3  1965.  p21. 

134.  SGZ  pi 79. 

135.  US  #5  1965  p77. 

136.  Turkevich,  pi 17. 

137.  US  #3  1965  p23. 

138.  US  #13  1968  p29;  US  #12  1968  p14. 

139.  LZS  #9  1968  pJ7. 


140.  US  #10  1968  p17. 

141.  LZS  #11  1968  p27. 

142.  ITS  #45,  p81. 


143.  LZS  #6  1966  p44;  LZS  #4  1968  p40. 

144.  XTS  #6  p36. 

143.  LZS  #4  1968  p45> 

146.  ns  H  p17. 

U7.  MS38/76  AS2633  pU  *33355. 

148.  LZS  #16  1968  p32.  . 

149.  SDS  v4  AS274  pp8-11. 

130.  Turkevlch,  pp121-122. 

151.  LZS  #24  1968  p39. 

152.  Palo  p33. 

153*  Turkevich,  p219. 

154.  SDS  vl  AS72  p3f  SOS  v24  AS1283  plj  US  #17  pllj  ITS  #14  pp4-6. 

155*  Turkevich,  p321. 

156.  LZS  #13  1965  p33. 

T57.rPatar  Soman,  "Who  la  Soviet  Physicist  Audrey  Tverdokhlebcv?" (Munich:  Radio 
Liberty  Reaearch,  November  17  1970),  pj>. 

158.  Ibid..  p2. 

.159.  US  #4  P21. 

160.  US  #3  1968  p44. 

161.  LZS  #23  1968  p71. 

162.  LZS  #8  1965  p24. 

163.  US  #2  p19. 

164.  Henry  Gria  and  William  Sick,  The  New  Soviet  Psychic  Dlaeovariaa  (Englewood 
Cliff a,  NJ:  Prentice-Hall,  1978),  pp43-51» 

165.  SDS  v2  AS125  ppl-4. 

166.  MS42/74  AS1806. 

167.  MS42/74  AST 810  pi. 

16 8.  Grla  and  Sick,  p291. 



169.  Turkevich ,  p321 • 

170.  Gordon  McVay,  Ssun-tni  a  LI  fa  fLanriom  Hodder  and  Stoughton,  1976),  p  226. 
Hadezhda  might  be  related  to  Valentin  I  Vol'pin,  a  poet  and  compiler  of  Zsenin'  a 
works  in  the  1920*  s. 

171.  Peter  Doraan,  "Biographical  Sheet  -  Audrey  Nikolayevich  Tverdokhlebov* 

(in  Russian)  (Munich*  Radio  Liberty,  12-14  March  1976)  pi.  It  should  be  noted 
that  TVZRDOShLBBOV1 «  older  brother,  Vladimir,  ia  also  a  scientist  (Candidate  of 
OiOTriftal  Sciences),  but  is  not  a  dissident.  Vladimir  stole  sane  of  his  brother' s 
files  to  give  to  the  authorities.  ITBRDOKhLEBOV  thought,  however,  that  Vladimir 
might  have  been  forced  into  it.  XTS  #20  p37. 

172.  Nowv  wiy.  July  1958- December  1966. 

173.  AS3051  p27. 

174.  0.  lu.  Shmidt  (head  editor),  Bol'shava  sore t ska? a  «.nt«iM-onadlv»  v14  (Moscow* 
Sovetakaya  entslklopediya,  1929)  pp664-665. 

175.  A. A.  Surkov  (head  editor),  Kratkava  literatumava  antniviotmdlvw  vl  (Moscow* 
Sovetakaya  entslklopediya,  1962)  p615« 

176.  SDS  vl  AS76  ppl-6. 

177.  Igor*  Grabar*,  Pia'ma  1891-1917  (Moscow*  Nauka,  1974)  PP387,  390. 

178.  Bothberg,  p204. 

179.  Van  Set  Have,  p31  .r 

180.  Zhoras  Medvedev,  The  Medvedev  Pacers  (London*  MacMillan,  1971),  vll. 

181.  Conversation  with  L.A.  Yudovich,  TVERDOKhLEBOV*  s  lawyer,  Gamdsch  March  1979. 

182.  SDS  v29  AS1601  p30. 

183.  SDS  v28  AS1530  p169. 

184.  SDS  v2  AS134  p3. 

185.  SDS  v4  AS274  pp6,  14. 

186.  HarnM  3afcm»  27  1979  p5. 

187.  Turkevich,  pp411-412. 

188.  Salisbury,  p7. 

189.  Turkevich,  p218. 


190.  A.M.  Prokhorov.  Bel t aovetskaya  «ptirfieiop«dlv».  v9  (Moscow*  Scvetskaya 
ants'!  Iclopediya,  1972),  p456. 

191*  SGZ  pi 26. 

192.  SG2  pi 66. 

193  Prokhorov  v12,  p22. 

194.  Xu.  Medvedev,  "Otkrpto  dlya  neozhidannosti, "  '"Open  for  the  unexpected*) , 
Znpmvn  #3  1968  pp  127-146.  Medvedev  mentions  that  Turehln  had  two  children  as  of 
1941,  pi 37. 

196.  SGZ  pi 33. 

197.  Turkevich  p233. 

198.  MSI JJT7  AS2902  p4. 


Chapter  HI 

The  following  565  footnotes  apply  to  the  biographical  tables.  The  notes  are 
listed  according  to  the  last  name  of  the  respective  scientist  and  are  not 
numbered.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  footnotes  for  the  biographical  tables  thare 
are  several  numbered  fc which  apply  to  later  sections  of  the  chapter. 

ABAKUMOV*  ITS  #8  pp 36-37. 

ABELEV:  International  Herald  Tribune.  November  24  1975;  LZS  #2  1968  pl65 
(with  S.D.  Perova),  LZS  #2  1968  pi 50  (with  R.D.  Bakirov). 

ABLIaMITOVA*  ITS  #41  p59. 

ABRAMKIN:  ITS  #43  pp93-94. 

ABRAMOV:  SDS  vl  AS56  p2;  possibly  the  A. A.  ABramov  who  co-authored  with 
le.  B.  Popov  in  1967  in  the  field  of  physical  chemistry  -  LIS  #11  1968  p30. 

AGRANOVICh:  SDS  vl  AS20  p2;  LZS  #13  1968  p27  (with  V.V.  Sukhorutchenko) ; 

LZS  #1  1966,  p23. 


AGHRSKU:  MS32/74  AS1789  p3;  SDS  v29  AS1601  pp29-33j  SDS  v28  AS1508  p17; 

2ZP  #26  p64;  US  #36  P59;  MS4lA5_  AS2314  p3. 

AZNBINISR:  SDS  v25  AS1Z85  p710;  SDS  vl3  AS1125  p13;  SDS  v13  AS1391  p30. 

AKhDNDOV:  ITS  #18  plO. 

AKILOV:  SDS  vl  AS21  pi;  SGZ  pill. 

ALBERa  MS34/76  AS2644  p4i  MS8/76  AS2422  p2;  AS3272  pi. 

AL'BREKhI:  SDS  v28  AS1530  pp 167-193;  MSI 8/76  AS2484  pi;  SDS  v30  AS2371  ppl 43-144; 
ITS  #36  p19;  AS3051  p26;  MS41/75  AS2314  p3. 

ALEKSANDROV:  ITS  #1  plO;  LZS  #3  1965  p21;  LZS  #1  1966  p23  (with  N.A.  Berikaabvlli) 
John  Turkevich,  Soviet  Men  of  Science, (tfeetnort:  Greenwood  Preaa,1975),  pp7-9. 

ALEKSEIeV,  Kx  AS3051  p26. 

ALEKSEZeV,  B:  SDS  vl  AS20  p2. 

AL'PERT:  SDS  v30  1S2966;  AS3272  pi. 

AL'TShOLER,B:  AS3051  p26. 

.4L'TShDI33l,L:  US  #14  pp6-11;  SDS  v24  AS1196  p2j. 




ANTQNTuIi  XZP  #3  p28}  US  #33  pp25, 28,40}  ITS  #27  pp280-281;  US  #28  p31» 

ARAN07:  SOS  v25  AS1409  p238. 

AR2UKGEL’ SUT:  US  #2  pi 5}  SDS  Tl  AS20  p2j  LZS  #10  1968  pl6. 

ARNOLD*  SDS  Tl  AS2Q  plj  SGZ  pp114^115|  US  #45  p8l|  L2S  #1  1968. 

ARONOVi  US  #7  p17j  AS2633)  AS3355}  SDS  730  AS3299  p466. 

ARTsIMOVICh*  SDS  74  AS273  p3|  Turkrvlch  pp26-29. 

ASTADBCV*  SDS  73  AS159  pi}  TurkaTich  pp31-32. 

lVERBOXh*  SDS  y1  AS20  p2;  LZS  #1  1966  p22}  SGZ  p109. 

SDS  y1  AS2  p2. 

AZBELt,Ds  SDS  724  *51212  pi}  SDS  t23  1S1173}  SDS  728  AS  1598  pp645-646} 

SDS  724  151196  p2,  151235  p3|  SDS  t25  1S1299  p2;  LZS  #1  1965  p91. 

A2BSL*  ,M*  US  #37  p26}  XZP  #3  p56;  SDS  t25  AS14S5  pTIO}  SDS  730  AS2604  p272* 
A52966  p263|  LZS  #9  1968  p31|IZS  #3  1965  p27  (with.  I«.  G.  Skrotakaya);  LZS  ff  1 
p20;  MS32/74  1S1789  p3|  AS3051  p26. 

BAEEEShSV*  AS3051  p26}  AS3355: 

BAChlBSUZi  SDS  Tl  AS  46  p3j  US  #6  p37. 

3AGATDR' TaNTa*  SDS  74  AS274  pp8-11  j  SGZ  pi 26  (co-authorad  with  BOChVAR  la  19* 
LZS  #16  1968  p32  (with  BOChVAB  and  1.7.  Tatkrrieh) 

BAUMAN*  US  #43  PP91-92. 

BlXhMZNt  US  #15  PP12-13}  ZZP  #3  p15}  SDS  728  AS1552  p38}  MS8/75  AS2006  p6} 
SDS  t6  AS435  pi}  1S3051  p26}  MS41/75  AS2314  p3. 

BALAU51*  SDS  71  AS20  p2}  LZS  #20  1968  p62  (with  A. 7.  Vvadanakaya,  L.A.  Misha 
and  Xa.  I.  Shixokora) 

BARABANOV*  SDS  713  AS422  p5,  AS42Q  p17,  AS426  pll,  AS600  pp13,26}  US  #47  p27 
AS3051  p26. 

BARANOVXCht  SDS  7l  AS20  p2. 

BARBOZt  SDS  713  AS1391  pi 24;  LZS  #6  1965  p119  (with  A.7.Tudla  and  la.  S. 
Mikhanoaha) ;  LZS  #6  1965  p4 2  (with  L.7.  Ghupziaa  and  A.B.  Paahkor). 

3ASSALZ00*  SDS  7l  AS20?p2}  SGZ  p120. 


3EGUU«  SDS  y13  -AS1390  p41  j  SD3  y24  AS1212  p4j  SDS  v25  AS1299  p50j  US  #26  p15; 
X2P  #25  pp26,  28;  XZP  #27  p21>  X2P  #29  p24;IZP  #30  p20;  SDS  722  ASIO84  pp1-5j 
AS3051  p31j  US  #44  PP33-34. 

HBE3N,3*  AS3051  p26;  MS21/77  AS2956  p2;  AS2646;  MS24/76  AS2558  p4. 

AS3051  p31j  MS19/*77  AS2966  p2;  MS8/76  AS2422  p6;  KS19/75  1S2130  pi; 
SDS  728  <181557. 

BEUNCfVSm*  ZTS  #45  p29. 

BELSTsET:  XXS  #2  p15;  SDS  tI  AS46  p2;  LZS  #5  1968  p2l6. 

SDS  ?22  AS1106  p29. 

imiYtnpnrwraTat  SDS  71  AS1  p4,  AS37  pi,  AS96  pi;  SDS  712  AS 399  p3?  SDS  t20 
AS1007  p98;  SDS  t28  AS1552  p382;  XZP  #1  pll;  US  #8  p60;  XXS  #6  p57;  SDS  74  AS289 
p2;  SDS  76  AS469  ppl-14;  MS11A4  AS1552  p2. 

HELOQZEROVs  SDS  t28  AS1501  pi  ;  SDS  730  AS2371  pp143-144;  MSl/76  AS2451  pi? 
MS8/76  AS2422  p2. 

taeri>T«g»mTOicTT«  SDS  v25  1S1<J05  pp21 1-216,  AS1406  p219. 

BSHZZMSmt  XXS  #5  p19,50;  SDS  vl  AS46  p3. 

HEHGi  XXS  #2  p19;  SDS  tI  AS21  pi  j  SDS  724  AS1196  p2;  SCZ  pi  22  (co-author  wit> 
A.l.  Takhtadahyan  in  1964). 

BEBKIIlBLXXt  SDS  71  AS72  p2. 

BESmt  SDS  71  AS 20  p2;  SGZ  p122;  LZS  #10  1965  p14,  160. 

HLIHChEVSKIXi  SDS  7I  p3;  SGZ  p123  (initials  are  probably  either  7.3.  or 

BLXuMEUi  SDS  t2  JUS107  p199j  LZS  #1  1968  p201  (with  A.X.  Shuhladaa,  T.M. 
Mayevskaya,  A.D.  Xyaburu.) ;  LZS  #10  1968  p176  (with  7.M.  Zhdanov  and  O.P. 
Peterson) t  LZS  #11  1968  pl82  (with  G.X.  Akinshina  and  D.S.  Zasukhin). 

aoChVARi  SDS  71  AS 20  p2;  SGZ  pi 26  ( co-authored  with  BAGATUR'XaNXs  In  1966); 
LZS  #10  1968  p55  (with  N.P.  Gambaryan,  7,7,  Mishchenko  and  L.A.  Kazitayna) ; 

LZS  #16  a968  p32  (with  BAGAXDH'XaHTs  and  A.7.  Tutkavich). 

BQDNOVAJ  SDS  7l  AS72  p2. 

B0GAChE7i  SDS  t23  AS1171  p2. 


BCrTsOTA*  MS6/77  AS2854. 

BQKShim*  SDS  rl  AS2Q  p2;  SG2  pi 25. 

BOLIHUXEVICht  SDS  v2  AS 107  pp33,  199. 

BOLONCTi  ZZP  #31  p22;  XTS  #29  pp51-52;  ITS  #30  pp88-89;  MS34/76  AS2631  ppl-26; 
AS3051  p26j  MS8/76  AS2422  p6;  US  #44  p65. 

BONDAR*  ,2:  SDS  y25  1»1394  pS7. 

BONDAR*, 7*  SDS  Yl  AS46  p2. 

BONBARChUK*  XTS  #5  p50j  SDS  y28  AS1550  p13;  SDS  yl  AS46  p2. 

BONGARD*  SDS  yl  AS7 2  p2. 

BORISOV*  SDS  Yl  AS21  p2. 

BORUVISOV:  XTS  #32  p86. 

BOVShESSBOV*  SDS  yl  AS72  p2.# 

BRAILOVSKAIA*  AS3051  p26;  MS34/76  AS2644  p4j  MS24/75  AS2156  pi;  MSl/77  AS1857 
pi;  MS32/*74  AS1789  p3. 

BRAILOVSKII*  SDS  y25  AS1485  p710;  XZP  #3  p56;  MS24/75  AS3099  p3;  AS3051  p26; 
MSl/76  AS2451  pi;  MS8/76  AS2422  p6;  M542/75  AS2311  p2;  MS32/74  AS1789  p4; 

L2S#5  1968  p193  (with  M.I.  Shraybar,  S.N. '  Braynaa,  and  1.3.  Ruaakoy) . 

BRANCVERi  XTS  #26  pi 4;  XZP  #1  p22;  LZS  #2  1968  p32  (with  A.S.  Vaail'  by  and 
In.  M.  Gal* f gat);  LZS  #13  1965  p33  (with  TadOBER  and  E.7.  ShcharMnln) ; 

LZS  #2  1968  p42  (with  G.A.  Vitolinyah  and  R.K.  Dutaxre). 

BROVXDt  XTS  #35  p40. 

BRUShLTNSKAYa*  SDS  yl  AS20  p3. 

BRXaDOSQIat  SDS  v2  AS107  p200;  SDS  yl  AS2  p2. 

BUIKO*  XTS  #35  PP41-42;  XTS  #36  p59;  AS1935;  MS27/74  AS1758  ppl-2. 

BURMISTBOVICh*  XTS  #2  p24;  ZTS  #6  p4;  XTS  #6  pp4-6,  30;  XTS  #10  p46; 

XTS  #20  p27;  SDS  t4  AS274;  ITS  45  p78. 

BURShim*  XTS  #23  p22. 

3IK0VA*  SDS  v13  AS1391  pp69,111. 


CMILAXhlaN*  SDS  vl  AS72  p5;  MS10/75  AS2054  PP4-6;  US  #1  1965  p55  (with 
HERKEISLIT,  YDVALEV  and  Yu.  I.  Arshavskiy). 

ChMIIZE*  SDS  v24  AS1196  p2j  I2P  #1  pp25-26;  US  #16  p36j  US  #10  pl8; 

US  #28  p43. 

ChERNAVSKTI:  DSC  rl  AS2Q  p4. 

ChERNYShOV:  US  #18  pp3-5;  SDS  v8  AS604  ppl-6;  US  #39  p37. 

Chnmov*  US  #26  plO;  US  #27  p29j  XZP  #2  p24i  us  #34  p34i  US  #39  p41. 
ChUEKOVSKH,  D:  ITS  #46  pp45-46. 

Choraovsm,  Gt  XZP  #27  p23;  US  #46  PP45-46. 

DAHIELi  SDS  v2  AS107  p33  }  SDS  vl  AS1  p4j  US  #8  pp26,46. 

DAVYDOV,  G*  US  #29  pp51 -53;  US  #42  p34. 

DAVYDOV,  Vt  MS32/74  AS1789  p4- 
DEMHUIi  SDS  vl  AS2  p2. 


DEZAt  SDS  vl  AS2  p2. 

Trnmr*  SDS  vl  AS72  p2;  US  #3  1968  p65j  US  #1  1968  p44. 

DUGCfVl  US  #6  p60;  SDS  v4  AS288  p2. 

DXHAEGRGt  SDS  vl  AS72  p2. 

DIONISUeV*  US  #8  pp 36-37. 

rasmix  SDS  Vl3  AS420  p17,  AS 426  pll,  AS600  pi 4,  AS601  p55;  LZS  #3  1965  p62 
(with  T.  Yu.  Ugarova) ;  US  #8  1965  pl47  (with  Yu.  Z.  Gendon);  SDS  v4  AS278  pi; 
SDS  v5  AS 322  p2;  SDS  v6  AS440  p4* 

DOBHDShHIi  SDS  vl  AS1  p3|  SDS  v23  AS1156  p9;  SGZ  pi 53;  US  #11  1968  p27  (with 
HQLOS);  US  #12  1968  p95. 

DVQSKIN*  US  #14  pp6-11;  US  #1  1965  p47  (with  Ye.  I.  Golub). 

DVQBZDs  US  #5  p50;  SDS  vl  .4546  p3j  US  #9  1966  p44  (with  T.7.  Karpenko, 

D.?. Mironova,  and  Ye.  A.  Shilov). 

DYaD*UlIi  AS 30 51  p32;  MS8/76  AS2422  p6. 

DZZS.AleVAt  SDS  vl  AS2  p2;  AS2633;  AS3051  p27;  MS8/76  AS2422  p6. 

DZfcSSESTt  SDS  v12  AS 379  pp27-30,  AS1 1  S3  p3,  AS1629  ppl-2,  AS1879  p3} 

SDS  v2  AS109  p2;  ITS  #8  p28,59f  ITS  *31  p131j  SDS  ?4  AS283  p2;  SDS  vl  AS103  pi. 

DZZuSt  SDS  vl  AS46  p2;  L2S  #13  1965  p34;  LZS  #3  1965  p30. 

Brnr.iMiF,  Gt  SDS  vl  AS2  p4;  SDS  v2  AS107  pp31-33. 

Si:DgL,MAII>  7x  SDS  vl  AS2  p4j  SDS  v2  AS107  pp31-33j  LZS  #9  1966  p39  (with 
:-L.S.  Shaykin). 

SJGSL’GASDT:  Turkevich,  p99  ;SDS  v3  AS159  p2;  I TS  #14  p7;  SDS  v29  AS1651  p323; 
SDS  v25  ASI48O  po78. 

SSSASx  MS2V76  2558  p5j  MS42/75  AS2311  ?2;  ITS  #45  p72. 

FAIaHMAUi  AS3051  p31. 

?.*DEIa7A:  SDS  vl  AS2  p4- 

FAZN:  SDS  v30  AS2604  p275,  AS2953  p652;  ITS  #46  p26;  MS5/75  AS1964  p14; 

HP  #25  pp28,44»*  AS3051  P31;  HS27/77  AS3035  p2;  MS2V75  AS2156  pi;  1-IS2V75 
AS2099  p3;  D2S  #8  1963  p46;  Uafe  1966  p34  (with  G.M.  Genkla). 

FATEEL’SQN*  SDS  v6  AS 390  p3. 

FEDOHaamx  SDS  n  AS2  p6;  LZS  #7  1968  p22;  LZS  #1  1968  pi  14  (with  7.3.  Artamkin 
and  L.P.  Babikova). 

FZm:  ITS  #37  p53;  LZS  #29  1968  p33  (with  7. A.  Sonks  and  Tu.  P.  Popov) . 

FEJHA*  US  #37  p53. 

FBI*  HS#2  p18;  ITS  #5  p49;  SDS  vl  AS21  p2;  LZS  #3  1966  (with  7.3.  Lagunov). 
FILIFPCf7:  ITS  #47  pp137-138. 

FEI*  ITS  #18  p27;  ITS  #22  pp2D,  23-24;  SDS  v30  AS2518  p3. 

FT3KEL'  ShDSZDi  SDS  v30  AS2841a  p65;  SDS  v13  AS1673  p21;  HP  #25  p42; 

AS3051  P30;  MS8/76AS2422  p6;  MS32/74  AS1789  p4j  MS24/76  AS2558  p4;  ITS  #45  p72. 

FIShHASi  ITS  #6  p60. 

FLI3-IA1I*  SDS  vl  AS20  p3;  possibly  ths  L.M.  Flitaan  who  co-authored  in  the 
field  of  geophysics  with  L.7.  Molotova  in  1965  -  LZS  #1  1966  p47  -  and  with 
L.P.  Zaytsev  in  1965  -  LZS  #5  1966  p56. 

?C2ETa7:  SDS  v8  AS5o4  p4. 


Jem::  ITS  #1  ?10;  ITS  #5  ?49;  SDS  vl  AS20  p2;  SGZ  ?p232-233|  SDS  v20  AS10C6  ?6. 

rajaS-SSJECEIsKIZ*  International  Herald  Tribune.  Hovenber  24  1975}  LZS  #48  1966 
p49  (with  7.  In.  Gavrilov  and  A.D.  Frank-Sanenetskiy) . 

F3E H-L'U*  International  Herald  Tribune.  March  6  1979. 

73EZICCI:  SDS  vl 3  AS426  pll,  AS600  pp4,13,  AS601  p55,  AS420  p17}  SDS  v4  AS278  pi; 
SDS  75  AS322  p2;  SDS  y6  AS44P  p4. 

FBIDMAHs  SDS  7l  AS21  p2;  LZS  #9  1968  p37  (with  A.3.  Mikhaylovskiy) . 

FUZS*  SDS  vl  AS2Q  ?4;  LZS  #12  1968  p18;  LZS  #13  1968  p29  (with  GEL’FAND) ; 

LZS  #27  1968  p34  (article  about  FUSS,  written  by  G-hiulLLa,  3.7.  Shabat,  and 
L.A.  .Ayzenberg). 

GABOVICh,  L*  ITS  #12  p17. 

GABOVICh,  la*  ISS  #12  p17;  LZS  #1  1966  p23. 

GAHEZ07*  SDS  v28  AST  552  p386. 

GAL'PEHIDs  SDS  724  AS1191  pp3f,  25. 

GASIE7*  US  #32  p89;  ITS  #34  p28;  US  #35  p45;  SDS  7l  AS20  p4;  SDS  71  AS1  o3; 
AS3051  p27;  MS41/76  AS2756  p2j  MS4V75  AS23U  p3}  SDS  729  AS1652  p  326j  ITS  43*pp50-51 

GAUShMAET:  SDS  7I3  AS1125  pp23-24;  US  #22  p14}  LZS  #6  1965  p23. 

G44ruSMAH*  US  #40  pi  35}  LZS  #1  1968  p91  (  with  M.M.  Aleksandrovskaya,  7.N. 

Larina  and  7.U.  Mats)}  LZS  #4  1965  (with  M.M.  Aleksandrovskaya  anri  L.G.  SamoyloTa) . 

GEL’FAIID*  MS10/75  AS2054  p4}  SDS  7I  AS2Q  pi,  AS18  p2;  TurkeTich,  p1l6  ; 

SDS  723  AS1156  p9;  SGZ  pi 41}  LZS  #13  1968  p29  (with  FUSS)  *  LZS  #12  1968  p14 
(with  FUSS);  LZS  #5  1965  p77  (with  7.1.  Bryzgalov,  PTalETsKIX-ShAPIBQ  and  M.L. 
Tsetlin);  LZS  #8  1966  p27  (with.  M.I.  Grayev). 

GZL’FAilDEEZM*  SDS  v13  AS1125  p4D. 

GEL'MAN*  US  #37  p54;  LZS  #19  1968  p86  (with  7.G.  Tudin). 

GEHKEIs  SDS  vl  AS2  p2;  AS  22  pi;  AS3051  p27;  MS19/77  AS2966  p2;  MS8/76  AS2422  p6; 
SDS  729  -4S1652;  ns  #45  p78. 

GSRBERa  HS24/75  AS2099  p2. 

GZRShOVTCh*  SDS  71  AS2  p2;  HS  #5  p52;  ns  #19  p32;  ns  #27  p 33. 

GZL'BEDGOBII:  MS2/78  .AS 3099  ?3. 

GiLTair;*  ns  #37  023. 


r.Tvnrrr:*  SDS  vl  AS2Q  p3,  AS1  p3;  SGZ  p143  (co-authored  with  FTaUTsgEI  la  1965); 

LZS  #12  1963  p14  (with  L.R.  Volevich);  LZS  #10  1963  p17  (with  VHHE8G). 

GH5Z3UF.G:  SDS  v3  AS159  pi;  Turkevich,  pp120-122;  LZS  #6  1965  p30  (with  G.F. 
Zharkov);  SDS  v23  AS11 56  pS. 

GHEam*  2ZP  #3  p56;  LZS  #6  1965  p30  (with  V.M.  Zontorovich) . 

GLADKII:  CCS  #2  pl6;  SDS  vl  AS21  p2;  LZS  #11  1965  p134;  LZS  #?  1966  p2Q. 

ns  #27  P43;  US  #24  p22;  LZS  #6  1968  (with  L.Z.  Gaskin) . 

GODZhEIIOV:  SDS  v12  AS379  p6. 

GOL’DHLAI:  SDS  v13  AS426  pll. 

GCL'DShim,  G*  SDS  v13  AS1391  pp69,  111;  2ZP  #2  p15;  XZP  #29  p5;  SDS  v30 
AS3116,  p76;  AS3051  p27;  MS19/77  AS2966  p2. 

GOL«BShlSZN,  I:  SDS  v13  AS  1391  pp69»  HI;  2ZP  #2  p15;  AS3051  p27;  MS19/77 
AS2966  p 2. 

GGL’TAHD*  SDS  v30  AS3265  p703;  MS5/*75  AS1964  p13;  AS3272  pi;  MS2/78  AS 3099  p3; 
AS3051  p27;  MS19/77  AS2966  p2;  MS21/77  AS2956  p2;  MS24/75  AS2156  pi;  MS8/75  AS2314 
p3;  ASl/77  ..SI 857  pi;  LZS  #6  1965  p30;  XZI#14pp6-12. 

GQL'DFAHB:  MS19/*75  AS2130  pi. 

GQLO*  SDS  vl  AS20  p3;  LZS  93  1968  p24j  SGZ  p145. 

GOLUB:  ITS  #4  p37 • 

GOLUBEV:  US  #34  p77. 

GCRBAII:  US  #11  p44- 

GORDEZeV:  US  #40  pp127-128;  AS2633;  LZS  #32  1968  p95  (with  K.G.  SherameVev) . 
GORDO:  SDS  v5  AS346a. 

GQRODZOV:  US#5  p51;  LZS  #38  1968  p83  (with  lu.  B.  Chechulia  and  T.3.  Satovskaya) 
GQZhIZ:  SDS  vl  AS46  p 3. 

GRA2AK’ :  US  #2  pl6;  US  #32  p78;  SDS  vl  AS20  p3i  AS1  p3,  AS7 2  p2;  SGZ  p14S. 

GHI3:  SDS  vl  AS2  p2. 

GRISJIZOV:  SDS  vl  AS46  p2;  LZS  #?  1965  p25;  LZS  #8  1965  p75. 

GSIG0R'*S7:  SDS  vl  AS46  p2j  LZS  #3  1965  p29. 
aaiShE*  SDS  vl  AS2  p2. 

GuHF3Lf ;  ITS  #45  ppS0-3lj  MS32/74  AS17S9  p4;  MS24/76  AS2553  p5. 

GliEVICh*  SDS  V  4a72  p2;  probably  the  A.S.  Gurvich  who  co-authored  an  article 
on  atmospheric  physics  with  KALLTSEUT07A  -  LZS  #23  1963  p71 . 

GuHTICh, A:  ITS  #2  pl6;  SDS  vl  AS72  p2j  SDS  730  AS3299  p466;  LZS  #1  1966  p55 
(with  Ze.  7.  Sidorova,  A.  Ze.  Tumanova,  and  Syoy  Fen ')?  MS42/75  AS2311  p2. 

GUSTOs*  SDS  v24  AS1212  pll;  SDS  v13  AS1391  p3%  AS1125  PP56-57,  AS1673  p26. 

GTTSE7*  ITS  £7  pp17,26;  US  #9  p19;  ITS  #3  p55;  LZS  #9  1966  p70  (two  articles* 
one  with  3.  Ze.  Bykbovakiy  and  L.F.  Hagibinaj  the  other  with  H.G*  Gavrilova 
U.  Dzhalilov). 

IL»IChS7:  US  #2  pl6. 

IMShErnnZ*  SDS  Vi  AS2  p 3;  SGZ  pl63|  LZS  #9  1966  p29  (with  7.F.  D'yachenko); 

LZS  £7  1966  p30  (with  D.S.  Nada^hin) . 

IGFEx  AS3051  p27. 

IOFFE*  .553200. 

ISA207A*  .1S3051  p27j  MSI 9/77  AS2966  p2j  MS8/76  AS2422  p6. 

I7LE7*  US  #1  pi  3;  SDS  v23  AS1163. 

ZA3AH07,  F:  US  #32  p86. 

KABAKOV j  St  SDS  vl  AS20  p3. 

KADIZeV:  US  #8  p4S;  SDS  v12  .IS379  p51|  SDS  vl  AS40. 

OGAN07*  SDS  vl  AS72  p3}  LZS  #12  1968  p28  (with  7.G.Pesehanakiy)  *  LZS  #3 
1965  p28  (with  F.G.  3ass  and  S.A.  Grade skul) ;  LZS  £7  1965  p28  (with  A.M.  ladigrobov): 
LZS  #6  1965  p28  (with  A.  Za.  Blank  and  Zty  Lu)j  LZS  #8  1966  p35  (with  I.2J.  Lifshits)* 

IAGAH07A*  SDS  vl  AS72  p3. 

IAUiISTIUI07A*  SDS  vl  .AS72  p3;  LZS  #23  1968  p71  (with  A.S.  Gurvich). 
UKEDQKDSTSZAZa *  SDS  vl  AS72  p3 

2AMP07S  US  #33  ?53}  US  #45  pp60-6lj  US  #47  p129. 

2UAZe7:  SDS  vl  AS2  p3j  SDS  v4  .1S2S3  p2. 


KilZZTXCXDIZi  ITS  #29  p69. 

ZAPIMKChDK*  AS3051  p27j  SDS  v3C  AS3249  P563J  AS3202  pi j  SDS  v30  AS3141  p1l8. 

KAPITsAi  XTS  #14  pp7-11j  SDS  v28  AS1552  p382|  SDS  v23  AS1156  pS;  International 
Herald  Tribune.  October  18  1978. 

KAPLAN x  SDS  vl  AS1  p4}  SGZ  plooj  AS3355?  SDS  v4  AS288  p2j  SDS  v5  AS302  p8. 
KARAS£7x  rrs  #7  p18. 

mPOVIChx  MS41/75  4S2314  p3j  MS8/76  AS2422  p6. 
kasakhj*  rrs  #34  p54. 

KAShEJAx  SDS  vl  AS2  p3. 

KATaGNIS*  MS41/75  AS2314  p 3. 

KAZlCbKOVt  XTS  #49  pp26-27. 

SEDER-STEPANCfVAi  SDS  vl  AS72  p3. 

KELDXSh*  SDS  vl  AS18  p2,  AS29  p2,  AS72  p3|  SGZ  p168j  LZS  #28  1968  p32 
(with  A .5.  Kozlov). 

KELPPES2S*  SDS  vl  AS20  p3. 

KhAHJOV’*  SDS  v12  AS379  p49,  AS1879  p3}  ITS  13  p4D;  US  #8  p48. 

KhAIT,M*  AS1S97;  MS8/76  AS2422  p5;  MSl/77  AS1857  plj  MS27/77  AS3035  p2. 

KhAIT,  Itu  SDS  v25  AS1418  p337. 

KhAKhAIeV*  SDS  vl  AS88  p2;  AS3051  p30j  AS2633?  MS8/V6  AS2422  p4. 

KhAULOV:  SDS  v12  AS1877  p38. 

KhAZAtlOT:  SDS  vl  AS2  p4»  possibly  the  3.1.  Khasanov  who  co-authored  an  article 
on  measuring  equipment  in  1967  with  L.5.  Corn  -  LZS  #5  1968  p37. 

SbEISEIi  International  Herald  Tribune.  November  24  1975. 

KhKELEVSKIYxSDS  vl  AS20  p4;  LZS  #33  1968  p34. 

KhHIPL07ICh:  SDS  vl  AS21  p2;  LZS  #12  1968  p34  (with  L.B.  Okan')j  LZS  #3  1968 
P44  (with  L.B.  Okun*)j  LZS  #24  1968  p39  (with  7.7.  Sokolov). 

KH07x  XTS  #43  K?  91-92. 

KU-a  SDS  vl  AS20  p3;  SGZ  pi 69;  LZS  #13  1968  p30;  SflS  v5  AS302  p8. 


KIRILLOV*  SDS  vl  AS20  p2;  SGZ  p169-170  (co-authored  with  GELT  AND  in  1964); 

LZS  #9  1968  p25;  LZS  #12  1968  pi 5. 

KIItXNITs*  SDS  vl  AS2  p3. 

KISELEVICh:  SDS  v13  AS426  pi 1 . 

EESL.IK*  ITS  #32  p85j  IZP  #27  p22;  1S2951;  US  #45  pp73-74. 

KISLINAx  SDS  74  AS274  pi 4;  Poser.  4th  Special  Issue,  J-me  1970,  pp43,  61; 

L2S  #10  1966  p177  (with  I.I.  Nikol'skaya,  N.M.  Shallna  and  T.I.  Tlkhonenko) . 

mi  SDS  v13  AS1125  p39. 

KHMMOVAi  AS305 1  p28;  MS8/76  AS2422  p6. 

KNUNIaNTs*  SDS  v3  AS1 59  p2;  Turkevich,  pi 66;  LZS  /9  1966  p44  (two  articles* 
one  with  N.le.  Golubeva  and  D.P.  Del'taova,  the  other  with  S.T.  Kocharyan  and 
BQKhLIN);  LZS  #6  1965  p42  (with  S.E.  Zurabyan,  L.P.  Basteykene  and  0*7.  K11' diaheva) ; 
LZS  #4  1968  p44  (with  B.L.  Dyatkin,  K.N.  Makarov,  and  R.A.  Bekker) j  LZS  #4  1968 
p45  (with  ARQN07  and  Xu.  A.  Cheburkov);  SDS  v23  AS1 1 56  p8. 

KOGAN*  SDS  v13  AS42Q  p17,  AS&26  pll;  SDS  v5  AS322  p5. 

KOLMOGOROV*  ITS  #1  p9;  Turkevich  p171. 

KCMODROVA*  SDS  v4  AS288  p2. 

KONx  ITS  #2  pl6;  SDS  vl  AS72  p3;  LZS  #13  1966  p23. 

KQNDRAI'EV*  SDS  rl  AS20  p2;  SGZ  p171. 

KONENKO:  SDS  vl  AS2  p5. 

KONSTANTINOV:  SDS  vl  AS20  p3. 

KOPYLOV*  SDS  vl  AS2  p3;  SGZ  p171  (probably  G.I.  Kopylov) 

KQHChAK*  SDS  v30  AS2542  pp1,5;  AS3051  p28;  MS41A6  AS2756  p2;  AS2633;  MS8/*76 
AS2422  p3;  LZS  #1  1966  p26, 

KQRENELIT*  SDS  v22  AS1071  p5,  AS1085  ppll,  166;  SDS  v13  AS426  p24,  AS601  p23, 
AS1390  p2,  JS1085  p5. 

KOROLEV*  SDS  vl  AS46  p2;  LZS  #46  1968  p37  (with  B.D.  Konstantinov). 

KOSTERINA*  ASJ051  p 28;  MS8/76  .1S2422  p4{  MS41/75  AS23U  p3f  HS8/75  AS2006  p6; 

SDS  v4  AS289  p2. 


KOVAIZV:  ITS  #8  p25i  ITS  #9  p2;  US  #14  pp6-11,  34-35;  SDS  v30  AS3129  p359, 
AS2371  pp143-144j  SDS  v24  AS1196  p2;SDS  v4  AS288  p3;  ITS  #34  p5;  ITS  37"p24; 

SDS  v4  AS264  pi;  SDS  vl  AS103  pi,  AS72  p3. 

SOVALEVSKAla:  SDS  vl  AS2  p5. 

KOVKERi  MS2/78  AS3099  p.3- 

KBXSTI:  US  #1  plO;  US  #27  p33;  SDS  v24  AS1196  p2;  SDS  v28  AS1552  pp384,  386; 
AS3051  p32;  MS8/76  AS2422  p5;  SDS  vl  AS2  p3, ' AS20  p4. 

KBONHOD,  It  US  #1  plO;  US  #2  p17;  SDS  vl  AS20  p3;  SGZ  pp175-176;  SDS  v2Q  ASIOOt 


KBONBOD,  Lt  US  #2  p17;  SDS  vl  AS20  p3;  LZS  #10  1966  p39  (with  N.I.  Zhirnov). 
KKOZhKOVt  SDS  vl  AS20  p 3;  SGZ  p176;  LZS  #10  1966  p30;  LZS  #1  1965  p23. 

EttLOTi  SDS  vl  AS20  p3;  LZS  #8  1965  p19. 

KODEQIi  US  #40  pp13>134. 

KULAGIN t  SDS  vl  AS20  p3. 

KULAKDVi  SDS  vl  AS21  p2;  SGZ  pi 77. 

kdutovi  sds  v8  as 564  p3« 

KDUuPINt  SDS  vl  AS46  p2. 

NDBOSht  SDS  vl  AS20  p2;  SGZ  p178;  LZS  #27  1968  p34  (article  about  KDRQSh, 
written  by  ALEKSANDROV,  L.A.  Skoroyakov  and  B.I.  PlotkLn). 

KOBSAt  US  #38  pp35-37. 

KUShEVs  SDS  vl  AS 50  pi;  probably  the  7.7.  Khahav  who  authored  article  in  the 
field  of  microbiology  with  S.  le.  Bresler,  R.A.  Kreneva  and  H.I.  Moeevitakiy  in 
1964  -  LZS  #8  1965  p53. 

KUShNAREVi  US  #46  p48;  LZS  #34  1968  pi  59  (with  A.S.  Bykov,  I. A.  Smirnova  and 
V.S.  Tyurin). 

KUSIANOTICht  SDS  v25  AS1418  p338. 

mChETSUZ,  Lt  US  #2  p19;  US  #5  ppU-16;  US  #10  pp33,  43;  US  #11  ppl6-17; 
US  #13  p30;  SDS  v22  AS1102  p2;  SDS  vl  AS2  p3,  AS50  pi;  US  #14  pp23-34;  ITS  #34 
p68;  SDS  v6  AS383  pi 3. 

KVAChEVSKU,  Ot  SDS  vl  AS 57  ppl-2;  US  #5  p48;  SDS  v30  .AS3008  p259. 


LADXZhENSEIX*  US  #30  pp93-94}  US  #32  p85}  US  #34  ppll,  32}  LZS  #4  1965  pi  5} 
.a  Tvardokhlebova  (Hew  Torki  Khronika  Preaa,  1976),  pp21-22. 

LANDAx  SDS  v25  AS1408  pp225-236,  AS1415  PP301-309}  ITS  #30  pi 14}  HP  #26  p6} 
ZZP  #28  pp56 -62}  XZP  #29  p5}  AS3384  p3}  MSI 9/77  AS2966  p2}  MS8/76  AS2422  p5} 
MS8/75  AS2006}  AS3051  p28}  MS41/75  AS23U  p3 }  US  #46  pp5-3. 

LANDIS »  SDS  vl  AS2Q  p2}  SGZ  p179. 

LATROVx  ITS  #8  p36. 

LAVUT:  US  #8  p25}  US  #10  p9}  SDS  v30  AS3299  p467}  SDS  v4  AS288  p3}  US  #3* 
p28}  SDS  vl  AS72  p3}  AS3051  p28}  MS8/76  AS2422  p5}  MS41/75  AS23U  p3}  MS8/76 
AS2Q06  p6}  SDS  v29  AS1652  }  SDS  v30  AS2966  p263,  AS2518  PI 59}  SDS  vl  AS103  pi. 

UZQBUHt  International  Herald  Tribune.  November  24  1975* 

LEONTOVIChi  US  #14  pp4,6}  ITS  #17  pll}  SDS  v24  AS1196  p2}  AS  1283  pi}  SDS  v23 
1S1156  p 8}  Turkevich,  p2 20}  SDS  vl  A372  p 3. 

LZRNERx  SDS  v30  AS2966  p263,  AS3231  P304}  SDS  v24  AS1196  p2,  AS1211  p2,  AS1212 
pi,  AS1235  p5}  SDS  V22  AS1085  pi 64}  SDS  v13  AS1391  pp121-122}  ITS  #24  p36} 

AS3272  pi}  MS2/78  AS3099  p3}  AS3051  p31}  MSI 9/77  AS2966  p2}  MS41A6  AS2756  p2. 


LEVICh,  lex  International  Herald  Tribune.  November  17  1978}  SDS  v24  AS1235  p4j 
AS1196  pi}  SDS  v28  AS1522  p105}  IZP  #2  pl6. 

LSTICh,  7*  International  Herald  Tribune.  October  24  1978,  November  17  1978} 

SDS  v30  AS2604  p273}  SDS  v24  AS119o  p2,  AS1235  p4}  HP  #3  p40}  Turkevich,  p220. 

AS 3272  pi}  MS2/78  AS 3099  p3}  AS3051  p28}  MS41/76  AS2756  p2;  LZS  #3  1965  p32 
(with  7.S.  Krylov);  LZS  #1  1965  p32  (with  7. A.  Kir'yanov). 

LEVIN x  SDS  V23  ASII56  p9}  Turkevich,  p219}  SDS  vl  AS2  p 5}  Delo  Tverdnkhlebtwra . 

LE7IT*  SDS  v24  AS1191  PP3,  25. 

LEVSbENKDx  SDS  vl  AS20  p3. 

LIBERMAN*  US  #8  p32}  LZS  #1  1965  p55}  LZS  #39  1968  p35  (with  SMQLXaNINOV  and 
L«N.  Ennlahkin) 

LIFShITa*  SDS  v13  AS1391  pp113,  123. 

LUXNKDt  ITS  #5  p50. 

LZPSDVSKZI*  SDS  v13  AS426  pll,  AS600  p13. 

LISOVSKAIa*  US  #15  p21}  SDS  v30  AS3299  p466}  ITS  #39  p6l}  AS3051  p28; 

1B8/76  .132422  p6}  MS41/75  AS2314  p3}  MS8/75  AS2006  p6;  LZS  #3  1965  p69  (with 
H.3.  Livanova  and  Q.7.  Sllonova) • 

LITTHIOV*  SDS  v29!  AS1609  pp57-59;  SDS  v20  AS1007  p98;  SDS  v2  AS 107;  XZP  #1 
rrs  #4  p34;  XTS#6  p63;  SDS  vl  AS68  ppl-2;  SQZ  pi 82. 

LODShlCh;  SDS  vl  AS20  p2. 

LGZAKSm&t  I=.tarna.tlonal  Herald  Tribune.  April  27  1979,  p5. 

LQZANSSHt  Intaraatlonal  Herald  Tribune.  Apzll  27  1979,  p5. 

LDBChlKKO*  SDS  vl  AS46  p2;  LZS  #47  1968  p23  (with  A.S.  Davydov). 

LUChK07*  SDS  vl  AS2  p2;  ITS  #2  p17. 

UJHTs*  SDS  v25  AS1485  p710j  XZP  #3  p56;  IIS  #37  p26;  SGZ  p183;  MS8/76  AS242 
MS5/76  AS2355  pi;  SDS  vl  AS20  p3;  LZS  #11  1965  p80  (with  B.B.  Lapuk,  S.S.  Zakl 
and  N.Xh.  Garifullina) ;  MS32/74  AS1789  p4. 

um*i*  rrs  #43  pioi. 

LZSEMQs  ZTS#13  p35. 

LXuBABSECT.  Xi  SDS  v28  AS1524  ppl  15-129;  SDS  v30  AS2931  PP337-341,  AS3019  p' 
ZZP  #1  pp7-8;  ITS  #28  ppl 6-21;  US  #37  p50;  ZZP  #28  pp24-25;  AS3051  p28;  SDS  v. 
AS 3031 ;  MS19/77  AS2966  p2;  MS8/76  AS2422  p5|  MS1 1/74  AS1552  p3. 

LiuBABsm,  iuj  rrs  #6  p6o.  - 

LZuBIHt  SDS  vl  AS46  p3. 

UuSTZRNISj  Turkevich,  p228J  SDS  vl  AS20  pi. 

MAKSIMOVAS  SDS  vl  AS2  p5fc. 

MALTDIt  SDS  v13  AS426  pll,  AS600  p13. 

MANDKL'TaVXZG:  SDS  v24  AS1212  pi;  AS1211  p2;  SDS  v13  AS1673  p28;  LZS  #1  196f 
(with  Perelomov,  A.M.) 

MAUEVIChi  SDS  v29  AS 1674  p493;  SDS  v28  AS1536  pp257-81. 

MAHUJi  SDS  vl  AS20  p2;  SGZ  p186;  LZS  #10  1966  p30. 

MARChOKOVi  SDS  vl  1372  p3. 

maresdii  MS41/75  AS2314  p3;  MS41/75  AS2315  pi;  rrs  #35  p22;  AS3051  p3i;  mss/ 

AS2422  p6;  XIS  #40  pp70-74>  MS2/75  AS1910  pi. 

MAHGULISi  ITS  #32  p86;  possibly  the  A.  Za.  Margulis  who  co-authored  an  artic 
with  S.I.  Zetel'  in  1965  -  LZS  #10  1965  pU), 



HARKOV*  SOS  vl  AS20  plj  SGZ  pi  86;  Turkevich,  p^. 

MAHTEK'  TallQV  At  US  #41  p78. 

MAShKOTi  SOS  vl  1SS3  p2;  AS3051  p28. 

HAShiCOVAl  SOS  729  AS1611  pp67-69;  AS 30 51  p28j  MSI 9/77  AS2966  p2;  SOS  v28  AS1582; 
SOS  723  AS1171. 

MATVITaHEOi  US  #3  p37;  SOS  rl  AS46  p3* 

MEDVEDEV*  ITS  p62;  IDS  724  AS1199  pp122-126j  ITS  #26  p22j  I2P  #1  p26;  HP  f 
pp 37-39?  IIS  #14  pp7-8. 


MEXMANs  SOS  730  AS2903  p19,  AS2993  p294,  1S3299  p467,  AS3265  p703,  AS2903  p19; 
IIP  #25  p49;  HP  #26  p36;  SOS  71  AS20  p2,  AS2  p5j  AS3384  p3;  AS3272  pi;  MS2/78 
AS3099  p3;  AS3051  p31;  MS19/77  AS2966  pi;  MS41/76  AS2756  p2;  LZS  #3  1965  p33. 

MEL'NIKOTs  ITS  #5  p52. 

MBHIOVt  SOS  712  AS379  pp31,$3. 

MKS'ShOVs  SOS  vl  AS20  pi;  SGZ  pi 88;  Torkavich,  p240. 

MEShKDVSKZZs  SOS  vl  1072  p3. 

MHUNl  SOS  vl  AS2  p3. 

MIGOALs  SOS  v3  Ail  59  p2;  Turkevich,  p242. 

MIKhAILOVl*  SOS  vl  AS2Q  p3;  LZS  #20  1968  p30. 

KZZfaXZaVt  ETS  #49  p74. 

MnCLHSKHs  MS5/75  AS1964  p14?  MSS/76  AS2422  p5;  MS24/75  AS2156  pi;  MSl/77 
AS1857  pi;  MS32/74  AS1789  p4. 

MTT-T™*  SOS  vl  AS72  p3» 


KXUSbSVIChs  ZTS  #15  p21;  ITS  #5  p49;  SOS  vl  AS2  p3;  80S  v4  AS288  p3. 

MINLOSs  SOS  vl  AS20  p3,  AS1  p3?  SGZ  pl89;  LZS  #11  1968  p27  (with  DOBRUShlN) ; 

LZS  #9  1968  p37  (with  SINAI). 

MUIUKhlNi  Mark  Popov  sidy,  "i  View  froa-Inaida;  Thraa  Lattars  on  Soviat  Scianca," 
Surrey  Volume  23  No2  (Spring  1977-78),  pp  143- 144. 



MXR&AZaNt  US  #41  p70;  US  #43  PP99-100;  LZS  #19  1968  p41  (with  S.G.  Jll: 
la.  P.  I-latochkin  and  A.  A.  Podsdnogia)  • 

MXZXamt  rrs  #37  p24;  AS3051  p31j  MS8/76  AS2422  p5}  MS41/75  AS2314  p3, 

MHIuBu  SDS  r30  AS2?Q3  p19j  XZP  #25  p49;  XZP  #26  p17;  AS3051  p28;  MS19A 
AS2966  p2;  MS21/77  AS2956  p2;  MS41/76  AS2756  p2;  LZS  09  1965  p30  (with  JUZ. 
Kitaygorodskiy  and  Tu.  G.  Aaadov) . 

MQGILEVERx  SOS  v22  AS1071  pp3,7,  AS1085  pllj  SDS  v13  4S1390  p2,  AS1085  t 
SDS  716  AS479v  pIQ;  SDS  v6  AS431  p2. 

MOTShHanHi  SDS  V24  AS1212  pi,  AS1211  p2. 

HOKAHm  SDS  vl  AS72  p4« 

MOSTOVAIa*  SDS  vl  AS72  p4. 

Mom»j  rrs  #6  p6i. 

MDChNIKl  SDS  vl  AS2  p3;  SDS  v4  AS 278  pi;  SDS  v5  AS322  p2. 

MISLOBODSKHi  rrs  #4D  pi  35;  I2S  #3  1966  p54  (with  JUM.  Ivanitskiy) 

MXuGK*  US  #22  pp20-21,  24|  XZP  #2  pi  3;  XZP  #3  p41;  rrs  #30  pi  16. 

HAXDQBFt  rrs  #2  p17j  SDS  vl  AS21  p2. 

NAXhMANSCNx  SDS  vl  AS21  p2. 

NAXAPOTt  SDS  vl  AS2  p3;  AS2504. 

NAUMOV*  MS42/74  AS1806  ppl-15;  MS25/74  AS1719,  AS1718. 

NAZAHZaU:  ITS  #48  pp31-33|  XXS  #47  p38. 

SEXFSKht  rrs  #6  p60;  SDS  v4  AS288  p3;  ITS  #32  p92;  LZS  #8  1965  p51  (articl 
about  ENGEL* GARDT) . 

mnasi  sds  v8  AS564  pi3;  vsze/n  AS2919  ppi-5;  its  #42  p22;  rrs  #43  pp45- 
ITS  #47  pp39,  41. 

NHQLAXaV*  ITS  #16  p36;  SDS  v30  4S3299  p467;  AS3051  p28;  MS8/76  AS2422  p6; 
p89-91,  39;  XZP  #12  pp25-31,  Vol’nova  alovo  v31-32  ( Frankfurt xPoaav,  1978)  pp 

NCKVAISAS*  ITS  #29  p69. 

N07IED7}Pt  SDS  vl  AS20  pi,  AS18  p2;  Turkavioh,  p268. 



NOVIKOV,  St  SDS  vl  AS20  pi,  AS72  p4j  SGZ  p193. 

OL'ShOVAIat  SDS  730  AS2522  p328. 

otrcflhnhTgi  SDS  71  AS20  p3;  SGZ  p195-196j  LZS  #8  1965  p2. 

QRAIeVSKTlJ  SDS  tI  AS46  p3;  LZS  #9  1963  p36  (with  S.M.  Levitaldy);  LZS  #9  1966 
p31  (with  le.  Za.  Kogan  and  S.S.  Moiseyev) . 

QHEVKDV:  SDS  vl  AS20  p3. 

CHLOVi  SDS  v30  AS2903  p17,  AS2371  p143j  SDS  v43  AS1501  pi;  ZTS  #32  pH,  105> 
rrs  #34  p15;  rrs  #36  p15;  MS8/75  AS2006  p6;  ZZP  #25  pp7,  87-38;  X2P  #30  p68; 
MS4/77  AS2795  ppl-7;  MS3V*74  AS1813  ppl-2;  MSIl/74  AS1594;  IZS  #10  1966  p36 
(with  7.21.  Bayyer). 

QHLOVSm*  SDS  v30  AS2371  pp 143-1 44;  SDS  v28  AS1501  pi;  ITS  #16  p31;  US  #30 
pi  13;  XIS  #34  pp60-6l;  US  #41  p31;  MS8/76  AS2422  p5{  MSI/76  AS2373  ppl-8. 

OSMANOV,  St  SDS  Vi  2  AS379  pp 32-33. 

OSMANOVx  SDS  v12  AS379  pp31-33|  SDS  vl  AS91,  AS85. 

PAALt  AS2919,  p4* 

PALAMODOVi  SDS  vl  AS20  p2;  SGZ  p199;  LZS  #23  1968  p38. 

PANFILOVAt  AS3051  p28;  MS41A6  ASZ756  p2* 

PAHOVt  SDS  vl  AS20  p3. 

PANOV At  SDS  V4  AS283  p3. 

PATAlaKAKt  ITS  #41  p25. 

PAVLEIChUKt  ITS  #1  plO;  XIS  #2  p17;  XIS  #3  p29;  ITS  #5  p 51;  SDS  vl  AS2  ps; 

SDS  v2  AS108  pi;  LZS  #5  1965  p29  (  with  L.H.  Oaachev  and  S.S.  Babotnov). 

PKKt  SDS  v2  AS107  PP31-32;  LZS  #13  1966  p54- 

PETSXHKOt  ITS  #8  p35;  SDS  v30  AS3299  p467;  AS3051  p29;  AS3355;  AS 3200;  AS2633. 

PSXSOVt  SDS  V23  AS1163;  LZS  #50  1968  pi  30;  LZS  #24  1968  pi 26. 

PSCSZalaVSKlZat  MS41/75  AS2314  p3. 

PETOKhOVt  XZP  #26  pp17-l8;  LZS  #6  1974  p73  (with  T.  Vitanov);  LZS  #31  1974  p91 
(with  7.1.  Tishchenko). 



PZVZI2ER:  SDS  713  AS426  pll,  AS600  p13. 

PBfflKOVt  SDS  t25  AS1460  P552;  ITS  #16  pp31-32j  ITS  #32  p88;  ITS  #15  pp15-1< 
L2S  #13  1965  p28;  SDS  t21  ,131024  ppl-4. 

PLOTSTHi  US  #11  p45. 

PLXuShcht  SDS  t30  AS1829  p325,  AS2518  pi  59  j  SDS  729  AS1619  pp141-152;  SDS  1 
AS1420  pp372-373j  XZP  #1  plO?  ZZP  #5  p50j  XZP  #29  p60j  SDS  71  AS  52  p2j  SDS  v* 
AS264  pi,  AS2SS  p2;  SDS  7l  AS103  pi;  SDS  728  AS1550  pp3-22. 

POLFTaPOL’ SKUt  SDS  730  AS2518  pl61,  AS2522  p328;  ZXS  #8  p35j  SDS  t1  AS2  p; 
MS8/76  AS2422  p6j  MS8/75  AS2006  p6j  SDS  729  AS1652,  AS1622;  SDS  74  AS  264  pi, 
AS289  p2« 


PQKHOVSKHi  SDS  7l  AS46  p3. 

pcumovt  SDS  730  AS3299  p466;  XZP  #28  p26;  XZP  #29  p23;  XZP  #31  pp9,24; 
AS3355|  AS3271J  ITS  #47  pp7>75. 

PQLXoSOKi  ITS  #37  p53.  * 

PQL'SKH:  SDS  t24  AS1212  p2,  AS1211  p2,  AS1235  p4;  SDS  v13  AS1390  p45,  AS13 
pp17,31;  SDS  79  AS628  p5j  XES  #34  p68j  MS1A6  AS2451  p2. 

PCtlaKi  SDS  71  1S1  p3,  AS2D  p3?  SGZ  p203j  LZS  #13  1968  p29  (with  L.G.  Gurin 
and  3.7.  Rayk) . 

PCKCMAEEV,  7.7.<  SDS  76  AS421  p2;  SDS  74  AS251;  SDS  71  AS2  p3;  SDS  t9  AS662 
POWCMAHEV,  7.1. t  SDS  7l  AS20  p2;  TurkeTich,  p9. 

POPOV,  At  SDS  7l  AS  2  p 3. 

PCPOV,  Alak.i  Dele  p23. 

POPOV,  7t  SDS  723  AS1171. 

POSimOVt  SDS  71  AS20  p2;  SGZ  p205. 

POSTHIKOVAt  ITS  #43  pp48-49. 

POSVZaJSKHi  SDS  7l  AS72  p4. 

POVZIJERi  SDS  71  AS20  p2;  SGZ  p201. 

PRIVOROTsKH*  SDS  729  AS1604  pp4>44;  SDS  728  AS1509  p27;  MS1/*76  AS2451  pi. 


PUT*  i  SDS  vl  AS46  p3j  US  a®  p37. 

PlaXET sEIX-ShAPIRO i  MS5A5  AS1964  pUj  SDS  vl  AS20  p2;  SG2  p206;  MS24/75 
AS2156  pi  1  KS24/75  AS2099  p 3f  LZS  #3  1965  p23  (with  S.  NOVIKOV  and  ShAFAEEVICh) . 

RA3EICVICh:  SDS  vl  AS72  p4. 

RAIeVSKIIr  SDS  v25  AS1418  p337. 

mmitti  ZTS  #18  p17. 

Bjmx  MS24/75  AS2156  plj  MSI/77  AS1857  plj  MS32/74  AS1789  p4j  possibly  the 
D.V.  Baum  who  co-authored  In  the  field  of  measuring  instruments  in  1964  with 
L.G.  Btkin  and  V.  la.  Zanovskiy  -  LZS  #3  1965  p59. 

RAMONAS:  ITS  #29  p70. 

RAPP:  US  #7  p17;  SDS  vl  AS2  p3j  SDS  v2  AS107  p214j  probahly  the  I.  Xu.  Rapp 
who  coauthored  with  I.N.  Shklyarsvskiy  and  R.G.  Xarovaya  in  the  field  of  physics 
In  1968  -  LZS  #48  1968  p49. 

RAShKINEHB:  SDS  v29  AS1654  p329. 

RAShSTNIS:  SDS  v29  AS1654  p3^9. 

RATHER:  SDS  v25  AS1299  p49. 

::  HEGEL* SON:  ITS  #41  pp9-12j  AS3051  p29j  MSI 9/77  AS2966  plj  MS8/76  AS2422  p5; 
MS25A4  AS1718  ppl-5. 

HEKDRRAIsd:  AS3051  p29j  MS41/75  AS2314  p3. 

HEZNIKOV:  SDS  vl  AS2  p4* 

RIGERMAN:  SDS  v13  AS601  p58j  IIS  #17  pp31-32j  LZS  #3  1966  pp29-30  (with  Z.I. 
Shapiro,  S.  A.  Fedulov  and  Xu.  N.  Venevtaevjj  SDS  76  AS440  p3. 

HIPS:  SDS  v24  AS1Z74  plj  XTS  #10  p21j  ITS  #11  p45j  ITS  #7  p17j  US  #8  pp30,56; 
SDS  72  AS110  pi. 

RODIONOV:  ITS  #2  p18;  ZTS  #1  plOj  SDS  vl  AS72  p4. 

ROGEISm:  SDS  725  AS14S5  p710j  SDS  7I3  AS1391  pp17,30j  I2P#3  p56j  SDS  7I3 
AS1673  p26j  USl/76  AS2451  p2. 

ROKhLUJ:  US  #8  p36j  LZS  #4  1968  p40  (with  S.T.  Kocharyan  and  OUNXaNTs)j 
LZS  #6  1966  p44  (with  S.T.  Kocharyan  and  KNUNZaNTi). 

BBBXZaESBXZt  SDS  vl  AS2  p6j  SDS  74  AS253  p3j  IIS  #29  p65|  SDS  74  AS288  p2: 
SDS  Vi  AS103  pi. 

.  BCMAI70VA*  rrs  #2  pi  8$  SDS  vl  AS72  p4. 

wvmmti  rrs  #36  p57j  XTS  #37  p6l  j  SDS  vl  AS88  p2j  MS8/76  AS2422  p6j  AS3051  I 

rOZENFEL’D*  SDS  vl  AS18  p2;  possibly  tbs  Ze.L.  Rozenfel'd  who  co-authored 
an  article  in  the  field  of  biochfflistry  with  D.M.  Helen* k±y  in  1967  -  LZS  #24 
1968  p71. 

ROZEIIShim*  SDS  v30  AS2953  p653;  IZP  #25  p44j  MS41/75  AS2314  P3;  US  #34  pS 
US  #35  P45|  MS3/78  AS3099  p3?  AS3051  p29j  MS ‘1/77  AS1857  pi. 

ROZhSCVA*  SDS  v20  AS1006  p9j  SDS  vl  AS21  p2. 

RUBUTAt  SDS  vl  AS2  p4. 

RDDAKDV:  SDS  76  AS469  pp2,6j  SDS  vl  AS1  p4,  AS103  pi J  AS3051  p29j  11S8/75  AS2 
p6;  SDS  729  AS1652;  SDS  v4  AS288  p2. 

KDDOT*  SDS  7-1  AS72  p/ 

HDZhUsEZi  SDS  7*22  AS11 06  pp8-9. 

OTUN*  Palo  Kovaleva  (New  Toric,  Khronika  Press,  1976),  p40j  MS41/75  AS2314 

SAKhABQV*  SDS  v30  AS657b  p2oL  SDS  729  AS1658  p353,  ASI696  p755;  SDS  v28  AS1 
p33,  AS1541  P301,  AS1545  ?309;  SDS  725  ASI463  pp559-566,  AS1470  pp6l 3-622,  AS14 
p£76;  US  #7  p17j  MS19/77  AS2966  p2j  SDS  723  AS1156  p8. 

SALANSUX*  IZP  #26  p24;  AS2646}  LZS  #13  1965  p4 2  (with  A.I.  Droldjfc,  R.P.  Sod 
and  S.  Sh.  Gendelev)  j  ITS  #44  pp92-93j  US  #45  p72:  LZS  #46  1968  p36  (with  A.I. 
Poll  sidy,  R.G.  Khlebopros,  and  L.7.  Mikhaylovskaya) . 

S ALOVA*  XZP  #28  p31j  AS3051  p29j  MSI  9/77  AS2966  p2j  MS41/76  AS2756  p2;  MS8/7< 
AS2422  p6j  MS41A5  AS2314  p3j  US  #46  p79. 

SAMSONOV*  XTS  #8  p30j  SDS  v22  AS1077  p8;  XTS  #18  pp36-37. 

SARHEY:  SDS  7l  AS46  p4* 

SELEZHEKKO*  XTS  #24  p7j  US  #26  pp18-19j  US  #27  pp2-5. 

SELI7AN0V*  SDS  74  AS288  p2. 

SEMENOVA*  SDS  vl  AS46  p4. 

SEMZaChUN*  SDS  vl  AS21  p2. 

SEN 3EECV*  XTS  #45  p79. 

ShABASh07*  AS 3051  p30j  MS8/76  AS2422  p6;  AS2264;  New  York  Tlaes.  October  20, 




ShABAIt  SDS  vl  AS21  p2. 

ShAFAHEVICht  Int^pnatlonAl  Herald  Tribune.  November  18-19  1978;  SDS  v30  AS2575 
o533,  AS3003zh  p549;  SDS  v29  AS1658  p353;  SDS  v27  AS13C0  ppl-71;  22P  #2  p49j 
ITS  #34  p84;  Turkevich,  ?334J  SDS  vl  AS18  p2,  AS20  pi  j  SC-Z  p241;  AS3051;  MS34/74 
AS1813  p2. 

ShAZhTERDIaUt  AS2014;  AS2285  p12;  ITS  #33  p44i  MS8/76  AS2422  p6;  ZTS  #42  p34j 
US  #39  PP32-34. 

ShANINAt  SDS  vl  AS46  p2. 

ShAPIRO,  It  US  #32  P92. 

ShAPIRO,  Zt  SDS  vl  AS2  p6, JS20  p4;  SG2  p240. 

ShAHXGIHt  SDS  vl  AS20  p4. 

ShEKAt  SDS  vl  AS46  p2. 

ShEPELSVi  MS21/77  AS2956  p2;  MS8/76  AS2422  p5;  MSl/77  AS1857  pi;  AS3051  p30; 
MS32/74  AS1789  p4|  MS 24/7 5  AS21f6  pi;  possibly  the  M.I.  Shapelev  who  co— authored 
with  T.S.  In  men  ehchikove  and  7.7*  Chernaya  in  the  field  of  meteorology  in  1968  - 

LZS  #46  1968  jffl. 

ShERt  ITS  #11  p54;  ITS  &  p47. 

ShESTQPAL' :  US  #2  p18;  SDS  vl  AS20  p4* 

ShIFRINt  SDS  vl  AS72  p5. 

Shut  SDS  vl  AS72  p5;  LZS  #1  1965  p55  (with  7.1.  Krinaidy). 

ShlEhANGVICht  ITS  #2  p18;  SDS  v30  AS2522  p328,  AS1829  p325;  SDS  v24  AS1196  p2, 
AS1244  pi;  SDS  v28  AS1552  p384;  IZP  #1  p14;  IZP  #2  plO;  US  #30  p88;  ZTS  #32  p63; 
SDS  vl  AS20  p4;  MS41/76  2756  p2. 

ShlLOVt  ZTS  #5  p50;  SDS  vl  AS20  p2;  SG2  p242. 

ShMAZNt  SDS  vl  AS2  p4. 

ShMIDTt  SDS  vl  AS72  p5;  LZS  #17  1968  p45. 

ShTENGEL'r  ZTS  #2  p19;  SDS  vl  JS21  p2. 

ShTEBH,  At  ITS  #34  pp15-19;  AS1905. 

ShlERN,  7t  ZTS  #34  pp15-19;  AS1905;  AS2354. 


ShTIL’MANi  HS33/75  AS2267  ppl-3,  AS2270  pi. 

ShUBl  SDS  7l  AS72  p5. 

ShDSTER:  SDS  vl  AS2  p4;  AS3355;  AS3051  p30;  AS2633;  MS8/76  IS?/,??  p5|  SDS  v29 
AS1652  p3j  D*la  Tvurriokhlahova.  pp 33-34. 

ShchADRINl  SDS  vl  AS2  p4. 

ShchARAKSms  ITS  #34  p66;  IS?  #26  p78j  XZP  #31  p5;  AS3051  p30;  MSI 9/77 
AS2956  p2;  MSl/76  AS2451  p2j  MS19/75  AS2130  pi f  MS32/74  AS1789  p4. 

ShchEGLOV:  SDS  vl  AS2  p4;  AS 3 249;  AS3202  pi;  AS3051  p30;  AS2633;  MS8/76 
AS2422  p4. 

SIMQLONt  SDS  vl  AS72  p4. 

SINAI*  SDS  vl  AS20  p2;  Turkevieh  p172;  SGZ  p220;  LZS  #23  1968  p39. 

SIPAChEV:  SDS  vl  AS2  p4;  SGZ  p220. 

SIROnmt  AS 3051  p28.  * 

SITZNKO*  SDS  vl  AS46'  p3;  LZS  #34  1968  p38  (with  7.7.  Kharchenko  and  S.A.  Shadchi 
SIVAShlNSKH*  ITS  #23  p21. 

SKLXaRENKOt  SDS  vl  AS46  p3. 

SKDBEZeVt  SDS  vl  AS20  p 3. 

SKDROKhQD*  SDS  vl  AS46  p3;  ITS  #5  p50;  LZS  #4  1965  p17. 

SK7XRSTOJ  AS3051  p31;  SDS  v2  AS  107  p33. 

SMIRNOV:  SDS  vl  AS20  p2;  Turkevieh,  p8;  SGZ  p222. 

SMDLKIN:  AS3051  p29;  AS2633;  MS8/76  AS2422  p4. 

SMOLXaNINOV :  SDS  vl  4S72  p4;  LZS  #1  1965  p55|  LZS  #39  1968  p35  (with  LIBERMAN 
and  L.N.  Braishkin) . 

SMOLXaNSKIX*  SDS  vl  AS20  p3;  SGZ  p222. 

SCTDA:  SDS  vl  AS50  pi. 

SOKOLOV :  SDS  vl  AS21  p2;  probably  the  V.V. Sokolov  who  co-authored  with 
KhRIPLGVICh  in  the  field  of  nuclear  physics  in  1968  -  LZS  #24  1968  p39. 

SOKOLOV,  Xu.  D*  SDS  vl  AS46  p3;  LZS  #14  1968  p29. 


SOKOLOV,  Xu.  lit  SOS  vl  AS72  p4. 

SOLOV’EV:  US  #27  p31j  AS3051  p6. 

STaEOSTIH:  SDS  vl  AS  p4|  LZS  #9  1965  p27  (with  V.  Kaa’yanov). 

ST50r.’JAIa:  SDS  v30  AS2839  pp43,45,  AS2966  p263,  AS3195  po79j  SOS  v28 
AS1559  p446;  ITS  #18  pp14^15;  US  #22  plOj  AS3051  p29i  US  #43  p44*  US  #44  pp62-63$ 
US  #47  pi  29. 

SrUDEUKOVi  ITS  #5  pp48-49|  SDS  76  AS383  p8. 

SUSbKO:  SDS  vl  AS2  p4. 

SEBOIaChKDVSKXX:  SDS  vl  AS2  p6;  SDS  v4  AS288  p 2.  * 

TALAHTOV:  US  #18  p35j  US  #10  p5|  US  #8  p41j  SDS  v4  AS253  pp2 -3. 

TAMMs  US  #14  pp7-8j  Turkavich  p388. 


TABTABOVSKUi  US  #6  p60. 

TATABSUI:  SDS  vl  AS2  p4,  AS72  p4;  SDS  v23  AS1156  p9?  SGZ  p226. 

TAVGER:  US  #5  p51;  US  #6  p60. 

TAVGER,  B:  SDS  v13  AS1125  p21j  LZS  #9  1965  p32. 

fflOi  SDS  725  AS1401  ahch  p200,  AS1401a  p180,  AS1418  pp318,332,336. 
TER^GBIGGROV:  US  #23  p29. 

TIKhCMEROVt  SDS  7l  AS20  p3. 

HMAChEV*  SDS  vl  AS2  p4,  AS22  pi j  AS3355*  MS8/76  AS2422  p5;  MS8/75  AS2006  p6: 
5DS  729  AS1652}  SDS  74  AS288  p3,  AS289  p2|  SDS  7l  AS103  pi j  a*3051  p29. 

TOLPXGO:  SDS  7I  AS46  p4j  LZS  #1  1968  p45  (with  S.M.  Zubkova);  LZS  #8  1965  p27 
with  G.  Xe.  Chayka). 

TCMChUK*  SDS  vl  AS46  p2;  LZS  #9  1965  p25  (with  XJL  Dykaaa). 

TOShlllSm:  US  #5  p51. 

TOVSTOKhA:  SDS  vl  AS72  p4. 

mFCJIOV,  E*  MS8/76  AS2422  p4{  AS2644;  AS2633J 
ntaraaUopal  darald  Tribune  ifcrvamber  24  1975, 

AS2527;  AS2296;  US  #38  p86j 


TBIFQH07,  7*  ITS  #26  plO,  Vol'nove  slovo.  v31-32  (^ankfurt*  Pose?,  1978)  tp36. 
TsAPEDKD*  IIS  #35  p43. 

TaEULDi  SDS  v13  AS601  p55;  LZS  #8  1965  p74  (with  B.  Te.  Kinber). 

TaEZhMISIREHZO:  ITS  #2  pIS;  US  #5  p49j  SDS  vl  AS46  p2;  LZS  #12  1965  p40. 

TsELXKh*  XZP  #27  pll. 

TalHMAB*  SDS  vl  AS2D  p4. 

TadOBERi  ITS  #45  ppSO-81;  LZS  #13  1965  p33  (with  BRANOVER  and  E.7.  Sheharbinin) 
LZS  #13  1965  p42  (with  E.7.  Sheharbinin  and  A.G.  Shtern) ;  LZS  #14  1968  p42  (with 
Kh.  E.  Kalis). 

TaOKEHMAN*  SDS  v30  p203;SDS  vl6  AS479a  pp23,25,  AS1056  ppl-26;  ITS  #18  p21j 
ZZP  #14  p7;  SDS  v6  AS44O  p3. 

TUPITsZNs  SDS  vl  AS2  p4. 

TDBChlir,  7*  rrs  #14  pp4,9,36;  SDS  725  ASI464  p567j  ITS  #7  pl6;  XZP  #25  p32; 

XZP  #28  p25;  SDS  71  AS2  p4;  MStf/76  AS2756  p2;  KS19/77  AS2966  p2;  AS3051  p29; 

LZS  #20  1968  p32j  ITS  #45  pp77-78, 

TURChlN,  Ks  SDS  vl  AS2  p4;  SGZ  p229;  LZS  #45  1968  p50  (with  M.H.  Preobrazhenakay 
L. A.  Savel'eva  and  N.N.  Suvorov);  LZS  #4  1968  p84  (with  7.P.  Bystrov  and  M.  Xa. 
Karps?  sidy). 

TURDNDAle7SKAIai  SDS  v4  AS274  p3. 

TDRDHDAXe7SKII  :  SDS  v4  AS274  pp13-14. 

TUTUBAId*  SDS  vl  4520  p3j  SGZ  p229. 

TVEBDOKhLEB07*  ITS  #24  pp19-20;  AS2483  pi;  SDS  v29  AS1678  p551;  SDS  v24  4S1196 
p2,  451255  ppl-20,  AS1290  pi;  SDS  v28  AS1519  p99,  AST 552  p382;  SDS  v25  AS1478 
pp  657-658;  SDS  vl6  45479a  pp4D-43;  ZZP  #1  p43;  XZP  #3  p14;  US  #41  p27;  XZP  #29  p24 

TXaGAXt  SDS  vl  AS46  p2;  LZS  #9  1965  p32  (with  Xu.  7a.  Gurevich). 

TIuHINi  rrs  #43  p89;  XZP  #23-24  pp15-l6. 

TXuRIUAi  SDS  vl  A520  p3. 

UBOZhKO*  SDS  v28  AS1521  p103;  SDS  v4  AS289  p2;  XTS  49  p39;  XZP  #1  p17; 

XTS  #13  p38j  XTS  #36  p56;  XTS  §J1  p60§  VoVncrre  slovo  V30-31  (Frankfurt*  Posev,1978) 


batmt  mu  ■  t  i  i  r  *<t  ~ '  f  t. ' tawaMHMH-' 

ULAII0VS2II:  23051;  1227/77  AS 30 35  p2;  1219/77  22966  p2;  1221/77  .22956  p2; 

ULITsKAIai  SDS  vl  AS2  p6. 

USPEHSKH:SDS  v1~22  p4*  _ J 

U7AS0V:  US  #4D'p130. 

VAIHBZRGx  SDS  vl  272  p2. 

V AIDER:  1224/75  AS2C99  p3. 

7juamr*  sds  vi  213  pi;  sgz  pi30;  lzs  #1  1965  p47;  lzs  #1  1965  pi 51  (with 

.11.  Shvemberger) . 

VABDAPETCaN:  ns  #34  PP53-54* 

VAHPAKhOVSKIX*  SDS  vl  AS20  p4;  SGZ  pi  28. 

72TL,EV:  nS  #5  p51. 

VASU’EVSETI:  SDS  vl  22  p2;  SGZ  pi  28. 

72SEHHAHt  SDS  v21  p2j  SGZ  p^29. 

7EKLZE07*  ZZP  #19  p50. 

VELIKANOV:  MS 41/75  AS2314  p3. 

7EtmH0VA,lx  ZZP  #2  p13*  SDS  vl  AS1  p3. 

VELIKANOVA,  Xi  AS3051  p26j  AS2633;  128/76  AS2422  p4j  AS2272;  22237; 

53/75  AS2006a. 

VELIKANOVA,!:  SDS  v30  pi  59,  23299  p466;  SDS  v24  AS1196  p2;  SDS  v28  21552  p386 
2  vl  21  p3j  23051  p26;  23009;  SDS  v28  AST 578  p2;  SDS  v4  2233  p2. 

VENTTsEL:  SDS  vl  220  p3;  SGZ  pi  33. 

VENTTsEL:  SDS  vl  220  p3;  SGZ  pi 33. 

VEPRINTsEV:  ns  #10  p23;  ns  #8  p37. 

veretenov:  ns  #1  pi7;  ns  #19  pi  3. 

VETUKbSOiSnXt  SDS  vl  220  p3;  LZS  #13  1965  p24. 

m»Ta!2i  ns  #2  pi  5;  XZP  #26  p22;  SDS  vl  21  p3;  220  p4;  23051  p27. 


VEISERGiSDS  7l  AS20  p3;  SGZ  pi 34;  LZS  #13  1965  p25?  L ZS  #10  1968  p17 
(with  GHiollUiQ  • 

vnraovEissiis  rrs  #32  p27. 

VITUShSINt  SDS  7I  AS20  p2;  SGZ  pi  35. 

Vljuminsm:  SBS  730  AS2522  p328;  SDS  728  AS1524  pp1l6-129;  LZS  #6  1965  p25 
(with  A.X.  Pankratov) . 

VOLEVICh:  SDS  71  AS20  p3j  SGZ  pi  36. 


VOLKOV:  rrs  #32  p77. 

VGLOSfalHi  SDS  724  AS1191  pp3,25. 

VQL'PIN:  SDS  730  p203;  SDS  t24  1S1196  p2,  AS1262  ppl-21,  AS1266  ppl-18; 

SDS  728  AS1519  p99;  SDS  rl6  AS479a  PP4,  34,  AS479b  p25,  AS479g  pp26,  34;  SDS  73 
AS163  p18;  ITS  #1  p8,  rrs  #2  p27;  SDS  7 3  1S163  pp  18-20;  SDS  t1  AS2  p2;  SDS  74 
AS288  p2, 

VOROKEL' :  SDS  v29  1S1632  p19}|  SDS  725  AS14S5  p710;  AS1964  p12;  US  #32  p65; 
AS1993;  MSI/77  AS1857  pi;  MS32/74  AS1789  p4j  LZS  #48  1968  p49  (with  S.B.  Garber, 
V.M.  Mimnitakiy,  and  V.V.  ShchekochUchina)  • 

VUL> :  SDS  71  AS2Q  p 3. 

WEZEQSZAZa:  SDS  v2  AS107  p200;  SDS  7l  AS1  p3,  AS20  p3. 

VTShEHSKH:  SDS  7I  AS46  p2;  US  #5  p18. 

ZaBLQHSECI:  US  #1  plO;  ITS  #2  p19;  SDS  7l  AS21  p2. 

laGLCM,  A:  SDS  v23  AS1156  p9j  SDS  71  JIS18  p2,  AS20  p2,  AS72  p5;  SGZ  p249. 
laGLCM,  I:  SDS  7l  AS20  p2;  ITS  #2  p19|  SGZ  p250. 

XajEbOT*  SDS  724  AS1212  pll;  SDS  725  ASI4I8  p338;  SDS  713  AS1391  pll,  135, 
AS1673  pp24,  26;  XZP  #1  p22. 

YwCR:  MS24/75  AS2099  p3. 

laUKELETIChx  ITS  #37  p24;  ZTS  #41  p72j  ZZP  #27  p23;  AS3051  p30;  MSI 9/77  AS2966 
p2;  MS41/76  AS2756  p2;  MS8/76  AS2422  p6;  MS41/75  AS23U  p3;  Palo  Kovaleva.  p40. 

YainCOV:  SDS  7l  AS20  p4. 

YaHEi-AGAZeVi  IIS  #45  pp17-18;  MS27/77  AS3035  p2. 


XaShHIOV:  SDS  vl  .4S103  pi. 
laVCR:  SDS  vl  AS20  p2. 

XaTGEJOV:  SDS  vl  AS2  p5. 

XuHOVSKAXa*  SDS  v13  AS600  pi 3,  AS601  p55. 
XuSEIAj  SDS  Tl  AS72  p5. 

XUSKA:  rrs  #29  p69. 

ZAKhABCV:  SDS  vl  AS21  p2;  LZS  #12  1965  p35. 

ZAKS*  SDS  vl  AS2  p2;  AS2633*  AS3355t  AS3 051  p27;  MSI 9/77  AS2966  pi;  ITS  #42 
PP8-9;  Dfllo  TmrdokM.ahom.  pp31-33. 

ZANCbSHKO*  SDS  vl  AS72  p3. 

ZAEETsKEXj  SDS  v22  AS1085  p94,  161  f  US  #23  p21j  US  #21  p26j  LZS  #10  1965 
pp24^25  (with  N.S,  Tul’faon,  L.S.  Chatvarikova  and  7.?.  Zalldn). 

ZASLATSKAXa:  US  #5  p50;  SDS%2  4S107  p205|  SDS  vl  AS 46  p2. 

ZASLATSmx  SDS  vl  AS21  p2;  LZS  #3  1965  p24  (with  S.S.  Hoiaeyav  and  H.Z. 
Sagdey ev) j  LZS  #3  1965  p31  (with  B.7.  Chirikov). 

Z2QLHISEEX*  SDS  Vi  AS20  p2. 

ZDQEOVXX*  US  #33  p50;  AS2088. 

ZEL’DOVICh*  SDS  v3  AS159  p2j  Turkavlch  p435j  SDS  v23  AS1156  p8. 

ZhAD'KO*  SDS  vl  AS46  p2j  LZS  #14  1968  p40  (with  7. A.  Romanov). 

ZhST£ZU07A*  SDS  v25  AS1409  p237. 

ZhOXOVSKCa*  Palo  Kovaleva.  p40. 

m07’E7A*  SDS  v25  ASI46O  p552;  US  #15  pl6j  US  #16  p3tj  US  #13  p38j  SDS  v21 
AS1024  ppl— 2. 


ZDEZD7SUX*  SDS  vl  AS72  p3 
ZDXe7*  SDS  vl  AS46  p2. 
ZXUHA*  SDS  vl  AS72  p3. 


'  1.  SDS  vl  AS1  p4* 

2.  rrs  #11  p44* 

3.  rrs  #5  p52« 

4-  rrs  #6  p6i. 

5.  SDS  76  JS564  p4. 

6.  rrs  #10  p2i. 

7.  Barghoorn,  p106. 


8.  Parry,  p296. 

9*  Valentin  Turefaln,  "Scientists  among  Soviet  Dissidents,"  Survey.  Yol  23  Do 
(105)  Autumn  (1977-78),  p87. 

10.  Loren  Graham,  Salanen  JMiamtnr  In  the  Soviet  -Union  (Dev  Yorktgnopf, 
ppl 11-138.  (GIKZBQHG  and  SSL’DOVICh  were  both  opposed  to  the  Intrusion  of  M»rH 
into  physics  <  pi  36) 

11.  Salisbury,  p6. 

12.  SDS  n  1376  p2. 

13.  ITS  #18  p35. 

14.  US  #43  p51. 

15.  SDS  729  AS1601  p30. 

16.  SDS  728  1S1530  pl69. 

17.  MS14/77  AS2S02  pp3-5. 

18.  SGZ  p130. 

19«  The  Medvedev  Papers,  p  Til. 

20.  SDS  72  JU3134  p3. 

21 ..  Uark^Poposskyr"6cience  Cities:  Akademgorodok.  at  al," 
1977-78),  pi 65. 

22.  Parry,  p295. 

Survey  Yol23  No2  (Spri 





1.  SDS  -728  AS1529  p125. 

2.  SDS  vl  AS91  p5. 

3.  SDS  725  J1S1420  p8, 


1.  Axslbank,  Albert.  Soviet  Dissents  Inte^actualfli  Jew  and  Detente. 
New  York:  Franklin  Watts,  1975. 

2-  Barghoorn,  Frederick  C.  Detente  and  the  Denocr>tlc_jAjv««*»nt  in  the 
New  York*  The  Free  Press,  1976. 

3.  Chalidze,  Valeriy  (editor).  Bggfltt  «*ehchitv  orav  v  SSSR.  Iasoas 
(January  1973-Sept saber  1978).  New  Yorks  Shronlka  Press,  1973-78. 

4.  Chronicle  of  Current  Events.  Issues  28-33  (31  December  1972  -  10  De 
1974)*  Londons  Amnesty  International  Publications,  1975-76. 

5.  Delo  Kovaleva.  New  Yorks  Shronlka  Press,  1976. 

6.  Delo  Tvardokhl  New  Yorks  Shronlka  Press,  1976.' 

7.  Directory  of  Soviet  Research  Organisations.  Washington,  D.C.S  Natlox 
Foreign  Assesonent  Center,  March  1978. 

8.  Doman,  Peter.  "Biographical  Sheet  -  Audrey  Nikolayevich  Tverdokhleb 
(in  Russian).  Munich*  Radio  Liberty,  12-14  March  1976. 


..  "Who  is  Soviet  Physicist  Audrey  TverdokhlebovT"  Muni 

Radio  Liberty  Research,  November  17  1970. 

10.  Dunlop,  John  B.  The  New  Russian  Revolutionaries.  Belmont,  Mass.* 
No rd land,  1976. 

11.  Grabar',  Igor*.  Pia'ma  1891-1917.  Mo scows  Nauka,  1974* 

12.  Graham,  Loren  R.  Sciimea  and  Ph-tlnaophr  in  the  Soviet  Union.  New  Yoz 
Alfred  A.  Snopf,  1972. 

13.  Gris,  Henry  and  Dick,  William.  The  Hew  Soviet  Psychic  Discoveries. 
Inglewood  Cliffs,  NJs  Prentice-Hall,  Inc.,  1978. 

14.  International  Herald  Tribune  i  November  24  1975  (p4),  October  24  1978 
November  17  1978  (p4);  November  17-18  1978  (p5)j  December  30-31  (p3)| 
February  14  1979  (p5),  March  6  1979  (p4),  April  27  1979  (p5). 

15*  lava  stive.  October  26  1975  p3. 

.  16.  Iaeledovatel' sidy  Otdal  Radiostantsil  "Svoboda."  So  vet skive  grazhdanc 
za  ahchi  ahchavut  molodvkh  llteratorov.  Spravochnik  No  74.  (Munich!  Radi 
Liberty,)  May  1968. 



.  Khronika  tekushchikh  flobvti7.  Issues  1-16  (30  April  1968  -31  October  1970). 
Poaav.  Special  Issues  1-6,  August  1969-February  1971. 

18.  Kh-m-tv.  teimahehikh  aobytiv.  Issues  17-27  (31  December  1970  -  15  October  1972) 
ft’frfrATfl  dakumantav  samizdat*.  7ol  10B.  Munich*  Radio  Liberty,  November  1973* 

19.  gh™Tv<v«  SaJaahBtftt  asteddga  Issues  34-49  (31  December  1974  -  U  May  1978). 
New  Tories  Khronika  Press,  1974-78. 

20.  Letopia*  ahurnalavkh  stater. 

21.  Magee,  Bryan.  Popper.  Glasgows  Fontana,  1976. 

22.  Matarislv  samizdat*.  Issues  11/74,  25/74,  *7/74,  32/74,  ,34/74,  42/74,  51/74, 
2/75 ,  5/7 5*3/7 5.  1 0/7 5 ,  19A5,  24/75.  33/75.  41/75,  42/75,  1/76,  5/76,  8/76, 
18/76,  24/76,  34/76,  38/76,  41/76,  1/77,  14/77,  19/77,  2l/77,  26/77,  27/77, 
2/78.  Munich!  Radio  Liberty,  1974-78. 

23.  Mc7ay,  Gordon,  E**nln;  «  Life.  Londons  Eodder  and  Stoughton,  Ltd.,  1976. 

24.  Medvedev,  Tu.  "Otkryto  dlya  neozhidannosti,*  #3  1968,  pp 127-146. 

25.  Medvedev,  Zhoras  A.  The  Mettvedev  Papers.  Londons  MacMillan,  1971. 

26.  Medvedev,  Zhoras  A.  and  Medvedev,  Roy  A.  A  Question  of  Madness.  New  Torks 
Alfred  A.  Knopf,  1971. 

27.  Medvedev,  Zhoras  A.  forifft,  .fclflBCfl.  lorks  Norton,  1978. 

28.  Parry,  Albert.  The  New  Class  Divided.  New  Torks  MacMillan,  1966. 

29.  Penfield,  Gary  A.  The  Chronicle  of  Current  Eventas  A  Contant  Analysis.  Thesis. 
Ganslschs  US  ART,  1973. 

30.  Popovaky,  Mark.  "Science  Cities*  Akadamgorodok  at  al.,”  Survey  7ol23  No 2 
(Spring  1977-78)  pp160-185. 

31.  .  "A  View  from  Inside;  Three  Letters  on  Soviet  Science," 

Survey  7ol23  No2  (Spring  1977-78),  pp  141-159. 

32.  Pravda.  August  29  1973  p3. 

33.  Rothberg,  Abraham.  T^f  Halr^  of  Stallp  pisaidanca  and  the  Soviet  Re^e 
1953-70.  Itblca  NT*  Cornell  University  Press,  1972. 

34.  Rnaakava  aval* .  April  29  1976  p5. 

35.  Salisbury,  Harrison  (editor).  Sakharov  Speaks.  New  Torks  Alfred  A  Knopf,  1974. 


36.  Saunders,  George- (editor).  Samizdat.  Voices  of  the  Soviet  Opposition. 

Hew  fork*  Monad  Press,  1974.  .****.a* 

37.  SohranlTfl  dokunentov  samizdata.  7ol  1-30.  Munich*  Samizdat  Archive  Association 
(Radio  Liberty),  1972-78. 

38.  Thnnw*-  John  R.  and  Kruse-Vaucienne.  Ursula  M.  (editors).  Soviet  So-!..™.- 
and  Technology*  Domestic  and  Foreign  Perspectives.  Washington,  D.C.* 

The  George  Washington  University,  1977. 

39.  Turehin,  Valentin.  •Scientists  among  Soviet  Dissidents.*  Survey  Vol23  Ho4 
(Autumn  1977-78)  pp86-93. 

40.  Turkevich,  John.  Soviet  Men  of  Science.  Westport,  Conn.*  Greenwood  Press,  1976 

41.  Van  Hat  Rave,  Karel  (editor).  Dear  Comrade*  Pavel  Litvinov  and  the  Voices 
of  Soviet  Citizens  in  Dissent.  New  lork*  Pitman  PuhHaMng  J  i64^ 

42.  Vol»nove  alovo  volume 3 1-32.  Frankfurt*  Posev,  1978. 

43.  Zaleski,  S.,  Kozlovski,  J.P.,  Wianert,  H,  Davies,  R.W.,  Berry,  M.J.  Amann,  R. 

SSlSBSfl  PtJITY  In  7??B  Paris*  Organization  for  Economic  Cooperation 
and  Develops*  nt,  1969.  »